MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977244105 · doi:10.1145/2559936

Automated cookie collection testing

2014· article· en· W1977244105 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew F. Tappenden, James Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeb testingWeb applicationWeb application securitySecurity testingSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebWeb developmentWeb serviceOperating systemCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cookies are used by over 80% of Web applications utilizing dynamic Web application frameworks. Applications deploying cookies must be rigorously verified to ensure that the application is robust and secure. Given the intense time-to-market pressures faced by modern Web applications, testing strategies that are low cost and automatable are required. Automated Cookie Collection Testing (CCT) is presented, and is empirically demonstrated to be a low-cost and highly effective automated testing solution for modern Web applications. Automatable test oracles and evaluation metrics specifically designed for Web applications are presented, and are shown to be significant diagnostic tests. Automated CCT is shown to detect faults within five real-world Web applications. A case study of over 580 test results for a single application is presented demonstrating that automated CCT is an effective testing strategy. Moreover, CCT is found to detect security bugs in a Web application released into full production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207