Estimation model for software testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Testing of software applications and assurance of compliance have become an essential part of Information Technology (IT) governance of organizations. Over the years, software testing has evolved into a specialization with its own practices and body of knowledge. \n \nTest estimation consists of the estimation of effort and working out the cost for a particular level of testing, using various methods, tools, and techniques. An incorrect estimation often leads to inadequate amount of testing which, in turn, can lead to failures of software systems when they are deployed in organizations. \n \nThis research work has first established the state of the art of software test estimation, followed by the proposal of a Unified Framework for Software Test Estimation. Using this framework, a number of detailed estimation models have been designed next for functional testing. \n \nThe ISBSG database has been used to investigate the estimation of software testing. The analysis of the ISBSG data has revealed three test productivity patterns representing economies and diseconomies of scale, based on which the characteristics of the corresponding projects were investigated. The three project groups related to the three productivity patterns were found to be statistically significant, and characterised by application domain, team size, elapsed time, and rigour of verification and validation throughout development. \n \nWithin each project group, the variations in test efforts could be explained by the activities carried out during the development and processes adopted for testing, in addition to functional size. Two new independent variables, the quality of the development processes (DevQ) and the quality of testing processes (TestQ), were identified as influential in the estimation models. \n \nPortfolios of estimation models were built for different data sets using combinations of the three independent variables. At estimation time, an estimator could choose the project group by mapping the characteristics of the project to be estimated to the attributes of the project group, in order to choose the model closest to it. \n \nThe quality of each model has been evaluated using established criteria such as R2, Adj R2, MRE, MedMRE and Maslow’s Cp. Models have been compared using their predictive performance, adopting new criteria proposed in this research work. Test estimation models using functional size measured in COSMIC Function Points have exhibited better quality and resulted in more accurate estimation, compared to functional size measured in IFPUG Function Points. \n \nA prototype software is now developed using statistical “R” programming language, incorporating portfolios of estimation models. This test estimation tool can be used by industry and academia for estimating test efforts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».