Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.31820

Hypothesis-awkward: Property-Based Testing Strategies for Awkward Array

Tai Sakuma·Ianna Osborne·Peter Elmer
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Hypothesis-awkward is a collection of Hypothesis strategies for Awkward Array. Awkward Array can represent a wide variety of nested, variable-length, mixed-type data. Many tools that process Awkward Arrays are widely used and actively developed. The unit test cases of many of these tools list predefined input samples. In practice, such samples can cover only a small portion of the vast combinatorial space of Awkward Array instances. Hypothesis, a Python property-based testing library, generates test data that can make test cases fail and automatically explores edge cases. The main strategy of Hypothesis-awkward generates nearly all possible Awkward Arrays, with options to control the layout, data types, missing values, masks, and other array attributes. Property-based tests written with these strategies have begun to run in the continuous integration of Awkward Array; to date, they cover a small part of Awkward Array and have found 37 bugs in it, as well as one in Hypothesis itself. These strategies make the tests of Awkward Array and of the tools that use it more reliable.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEhep-ex

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tai Sakuma, Ianna Osborne, Peter Elmer. 2026-09-25. Hypothesis-awkward: Property-Based Testing Strategies for Awkward Array. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.31820

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Dynamics of Agentic Multi-Hunk Repair

Automated program repair has traditionally focused on single-hunk defects, overlooking multi-hunk bugs that are prevalent in real-world systems. Repairing these bugs requires coordinated edits across multiple, disjoint code regions, posing substantially greater challenges. We present the first systematic study of LLM-driven coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini-cli, and Qwen Code) on this task. We evaluate these four state-of-the-art agents on 404 multi-hunk bugs from the PolyHunk dataset, yielding 1,616 repair trajectories for large-scale behavioral analysis. We employ fine-grained metrics to assess localization, repair accuracy, regression behavior, and operational dynamics across agents. We find that localization capability varies substantially, with Codex achieving the highest success rate (75.3%) and Qwen Code the lowest (40.4%). Repair accuracy also differs widely, ranging from 26.98% (Qwen Code) to 92.82% (Claude Code), and consistently declines with increasing bug dispersion and complexity (hunk divergence and spatial proximity). High-performing agents (Claude Code and Codex) demonstrate superior semantic consistency, achieving positive average regression reduction, whereas lower-performing agents often introduce new test failures. Notably, agents do not fail fast; failed repairs consume substantially more resources (33%-440% more input tokens) and require longer execution time (35%-330%). Additionally, we developed Maple to provide agents with repository-level context. Empirical results show that Maple improves repair accuracy of Gemini-cli by ~21% through enhanced localization. By analyzing fine-grained metrics and trajectory-level analysis, this study moves beyond accuracy to explain how coding agents localize, reason, and act during multi-hunk repair. Our findings underscore the impact of bug divergence and spatial proximity on multi-hunk repair success for coding agents.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Do Newer Models Produce Better Patches? A Non-Functional Quality Study

Repository-level coding benchmarks typically measure progress in model capability by comparing the resolved rates of later and earlier models. However, this focus overlooks whether the non-functional quality of their generated patches has also changed across model generations. This study investigates whether later models produce functionally correct patches with better non-functional characteristics than earlier models on comparable repository-level repair tasks. We conducted two case studies involving four Claude and DeepSeek models on SWE-bench Lite. Using the same SWE-agent functional repair setting, we evaluated the generated patches with CodeQL, CodeScene, CPU time, and peak memory. Our primary analysis compared the models on commonly resolved instances. The static analysis results showed that most CodeQL paired differences were zero and that no CodeQL or CodeScene comparison remained significant after Holm correction. CPU time differences were small and inconsistent across model families, while peak memory usage was slightly higher for the later models under the benchmark test workload, with small absolute differences. Differences in individual CodeQL rules and CodeScene categories varied across model families and did not survive multiple-comparison correction. Overall, later models resolved more instances but showed no consistent improvement in the measured non-functional indicators on tasks solved by both models. Through this study, we hope to encourage a more comprehensive evaluation of models' practical software engineering capabilities.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Better Understanding, Better Fixes? A Study of Hallucination in LLM-based Automated Program Repair

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced automated program repair (APR), yet existing evaluations remain largely result-centric and provide limited insight into hallucination during repair. In APR, hallucination may arise not only in final patches but also in the intermediate artifacts that guide patch generation. To address this gap, we perform a multi-layered analysis of hallucination throughout the APR process. Specifically, we characterize hallucination as the production of patches or intermediate artifacts that are not faithfully grounded in the available repair evidence. We examine repair hallucination in final patches and understanding hallucination in intermediate artifacts through three tasks, namely triggering testcase identification, line coverage prediction, and additional testcase generation. We then evaluate three representative LLMs on 832 Defects4J bugs through automatic evaluation and manual analysis. Our results show that both repair and understanding hallucinations remain prevalent. Across models and settings, only 21.0%-55.9% of generated patches pass the developer-written test suite. Moreover, although more accurate intermediate artifacts are generally associated with successful repairs, this relationship does not always hold. Manual analysis of 812 sampled repairs identifies repair hallucinations in 72.7% of cases, including patches that pass all available tests; incorrect causal localization and incorrect repair strategies account for 45.9% and 18.5% of these hallucinations, respectively. Meanwhile, models frequently misidentify triggering testcases, mispredict line coverage involving branching control flow, and generate additional testcases with missing bug-triggering conditions or incorrect expected behavior.

cs.SE↗