<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2302.06527/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2302.06527/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation — mentioned by Our_Benefactors</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45336340</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2302.06527:45336340</guid><pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:05:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Go ahead and move the goalposts now... This took about 2 minutes of research to support the conclusions I know to be true. You can waste time as long as you choose in academia attempting to prove any point, while normal people make real contributions using LLMs. ### An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation We evaluate TESTPILOT using OpenAI’s gpt3.5-turbo LLM on 25 npm packages with a total of 1,684 API functions. The generated tests achieve a median statement coverage of 70.2% and branch coverage of 52.8%. In contrast, the state-of-the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2302.06527/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
