Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the tendency of engineers to overly trust AI-based test agents in software testing, highlighting the risks of diminished cognitive control and inadequate scrutiny of test outputs. By analyzing the issue through the lenses of cognitive problem-solving, autonomous agent behavior, and test design argumentation, the authors reveal how reliance on these agents can compromise the validity of testing artifacts. They propose a framework to assess and mitigate overreliance, aiming to enhance the efficiency of testing processes while preserving the integrity of test evidence.
Engineers risk losing cognitive control and compromising test validity by overtrusting AI test agents, which could undermine software quality assurance.
AI-based test agents promise to accelerate software testing by shortening feedback loops in continuous development and improving scalability and maintainability. To realize these benefits, engineers must still be able to assess if agent outputs are useful, valid, and reliable, rather than treating them as credible because they come from a capable system. This paper argues that overreliance on AI in testing is both an agency problem, in which engineers may cede cognitive control over test design decisions, and an assurance problem, in which testing artifacts may be accepted as evidence without sufficient scrutiny. We develop this argument through three theoretical lenses: software testing as cognitive problem-solving, test agents as adaptively autonomous entities, and test design argumentation as a means of making generated tests reviewable. We propose a framework for collecting data on overreliance in test agent workflows and identify specific modes of overdependence. The goal is to support accelerated testing without weakening judgment or the assurance value of testing evidence.
