TestGen-LLM is such a strange creation. I can see how it could be used as a first step in a refactoring or rewrite, but the emphasis on code coverage in the paper seems totally brain-broke. I suppose it'd be great if your org is already brain-broke and demanding high coverage, but TestGen-LLM won't make your project's code better in any way, and it'll increase the friction involved in actually implementing improvements. It'd be much more useful to generate edge-case tests that may or may not be passing, but TestGen-LLM relies on compiler errors and failing tests to filter out LLM garbage. The lack of any examples of the generated tests in the paper makes me suspect that they're the same as the rest of the LLM-generated code I have seen: amateurish.