arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2403.14965cs.SEcs.AI
收藏

大型语言模型用于自动化行为驱动开发验收测试制定的综合评估与洞察

Comprehensive Evaluation and Insights into the Use of Large Language Models in the Automation of Behavior-Driven Development Acceptance Test Formulation

Shanthi Karpurapu, Sravanthy Myneni, Unnati Nettur, Likhit Sagar Gajja, Dave Burke, Tom Stiehm, Jeffery Payne

AI总结:

本文评估GPT-3.5、GPT-4、Llama-2-13B和PaLM-2在零样本与少样本提示下自动生成BDD验收测试的效果,发现GPT系列表现最佳且少样本提示可提升准确率。

摘要:

行为驱动开发(BDD)是一种敏捷测试方法,旨在促进开发者、QA分析师和利益相关者之间的协作。在本文中,我们提出了一种利用大型语言模型(LLM)自动化验收测试生成以增强BDD实践的新方法。本研究使用零样本和少样本提示来评估GPT-3.5、GPT-4、Llama-2-13B和PaLM-2等LLM。论文给出了详细方法,包括数据集、提示技术、LLM和评估流程。结果表明,GPT-3.5和GPT-4能够生成无错误的BDD验收测试,并具有更优性能。少样本提示技术通过纳入示例进行上下文学习,展现出提供更高准确率的能力。此外,研究考察了语法错误、验证准确率以及LLM的比较分析,揭示了它们在增强BDD实践方面的有效性。然而,本研究也承认所提方法存在局限性。我们强调,该方法能够支持协作式BDD流程,并为未来研究使用LLM自动化生成BDD验收测试创造机会。

英文摘要:

Behavior-driven development (BDD) is an Agile testing methodology fostering collaboration among developers, QA analysts, and stakeholders. In this manuscript, we propose a novel approach to enhance BDD practices using large language models (LLMs) to automate acceptance test generation. Our study uses zero and few-shot prompts to evaluate LLMs such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-2-13B, and PaLM-2. The paper presents a detailed methodology that includes the dataset, prompt techniques, LLMs, and the evaluation process. The results demonstrate that GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 generate error-free BDD acceptance tests with better performance. The few-shot prompt technique highlights its ability to provide higher accuracy by incorporating examples for in-context learning. Furthermore, the study examines syntax errors, validation accuracy, and comparative analysis of LLMs, revealing their effectiveness in enhancing BDD practices. However, our study acknowledges that there are limitations to the proposed approach. We emphasize that this approach can support collaborative BDD processes and create opportunities for future research into automated BDD acceptance test generation using LLMs.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑