FlakyFix: Using Large Language Models for Predicting Flaky Test Fix Categories and Test Code Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flaky tests are problematic because they non-deterministically pass or fail for the same software version under test, causing confusion and wasting development effort. While machine learning models have been used to predict flakiness and its root causes, there is much less work on providing support to fix the problem. To address this gap, in this paper, we focus on predicting the type of fix that is required to remove flakiness and then repair the test code on that basis. We do this for a subset of flaky tests where the root cause of flakiness is in the test itself and not in the production code. One key idea is to guide the repair process with additional knowledge about the test's flakiness in the form of its predicted fix category. Thus, we first propose a framework that automatically generates labeled datasets for 13 fix categories and trains models to predict the fix category of a flaky test by analyzing the test code only. Our experimental results using code models and few-shot learning show that we can correctly predict most of the fix categories. To show the usefulness of such fix category labels for automatically repairing flakiness, we augment the prompts of GPT 3.5 Turbo, a Large Language Model (LLM), with such extra knowledge to request repair suggestions. The results show that our suggested fix category labels, complemented with in-context learning, significantly enhance the capability of GPT 3.5 Turbo in generating fixes for flaky tests. Based on the execution and analysis of a sample of GPT-repaired flaky tests, we estimate that a large percentage of such repairs, (roughly between 51% and 83%) can be expected to pass. For the failing repaired tests, on average, 16% of the test code needs to be further changed for them to pass.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".