Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large software systems often keep log files of events. Such log files can be analyzed to check whether a run of a program reveals faults in the system. We discuss how such log files can be used in software testing. We present a framework for automatically analyzing log files, and describe a language for specifying analyzer programs and an implementation of that language. The language permits compositional, compact specifications of software, which act as test oracles; we discuss the use and efficacy of these oracles for unit- and system-level testing in various settings. We explore methodological issues such as efficiency and logging policies, and the scope and limitations of the framework. We conclude that testing using log file analysis constitutes a useful methodology for software verification, somewhere between current testing practice and formal verification methodologies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".