MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1900631367 · doi:10.1109/qrs-c.2015.26

On the Effect of Counters in Guard Conditions When State-Based Multi-objective Testing

2015· article· en· W1900631367 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtended finite-state machineTree traversalGuard (computer science)Finite-state machineComputer scienceExecutableAutomatonGraphState (computer science)Deterministic finite automatonGraph traversalTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During test case generation from an extended finite state machine (EFSM), the counter problem is caused by the presence of guard conditions that refer to counter variables. Because such variables are initialized and updated by transitions in the EFSM, every traversal of the state machine graph is not necessarily feasible, i.e., executable. The problem manifests itself by the fact that a transition, a sequence of transitions, or a more complex behavior in the state machine, has to be repeatedly triggered to eventually trigger a specific behavior (another transition). In this paper we define different manifestations of the counter problem and experiment with a new search based solution for that problem. We also investigate how the counter problem affects a multi-objective genetic algorithm that generates test suites from an EFSM. We evaluate our solution and compare it with an existing one, using three different case studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it