Benchmarks are essential for unified evaluation and reproducibility. The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering (AI4SE) has produced numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug repair. However, this proliferation has led to major challenges: (1) fragmented knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting contextually relevant benchmarks, (3) lack of standardization in benchmark creation, and (4) flaws that limit utility. Addressing these requires a dual approach: systematically mapping existing benchmarks for informed selection and defining unified guidelines for robust, adaptable benchmark development. We conduct a review of 247 studies, identifying 273 AI4SE benchmarks since 2014. We categorize them, analyze limitations, and expose gaps in current practices. Building on these insights, we introduce BenchScout, an extensible semantic search tool for locating suitable benchmarks. BenchScout employs automated clustering with contextual embeddings of benchmark-related studies, followed by dimensionality reduction. In a user study with 22 participants, BenchScout achieved usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To improve benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified approach to improve benchmark quality. Applying Bench-Frame to HumanEval yielded HumanEvalNext, which features corrected errors, improved language conversion, higher test coverage, and greater difficulty. Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art code models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext revealed average pass-at-1 drops of 31.22% and 19.94%, respectively, underscoring the need for continuous benchmark refinement. We further examine BenchFrame’s scalability through an agentic pipeline and confirm its generalizability on the MBPP dataset. Lastly, we publicly release the material of our review, user study, and the enhanced benchmark.1

Automated unit test generators, particularly searchbased software testing tools like EvoSuite, are capable of generating tests with high coverage. Although these generators alleviate the burden of writing unit tests, they often pose challenges for software engineers in terms of understanding the generated tests. To address this, we introduce UTGen, which combines searchbased software testing and large language models to enhance the understandability of automatically generated test cases. We achieve this enhancement through contextualizing test data, improving identifier naming, and adding descriptive comments. Through a controlled experiment with 32 participants from both academia and industry, we investigate how the understandability of unit tests affects a software engineer's ability to perform bug-fixing tasks. We selected bug-fixing to simulate a real-world scenario that emphasizes the importance of understandable test cases. We observe that participants working on assignments with UTGen test cases fix up to 33 % more bugs and use up to 20 % less time when compared to baseline test cases. From the post-test questionnaire, we gathered that participants found that enhanced test names, test data, and variable names improved their bugfixing process.