Coverage‐based regression test case selection, minimization and prioritization: a case study on an industrial system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper presents a case study of coverage‐based regression testing techniques on a real world industrial system with real regression faults. The study evaluates four common prioritization techniques, a test selection technique, a test suite minimization technique and a hybrid approach that combines selection and minimization. The study also examines the effects of using various coverage criteria on the effectiveness of the studied approaches. The results show that prioritization techniques that are based on additional coverage with finer grained coverage criteria perform significantly better in fault detection rates. The study also reveals that using modification information in prioritization techniques does not significantly enhance fault detection rates. The results show that test selection does not provide significant savings in execution cost (<2%), which might be attributed to the nature of the changes made to the system. Test suite minimization using finer grained coverage criteria could provide significant savings in execution cost (79.5%) while maintaining a fault detection capability level above 70%, thus representing a possible trade‐off. The hybrid technique did not provide a significant improvement over traditional minimization techniques. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it