MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030553922 · doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxp073

Fault Coverage-Driven Incremental Test Generation

2009· article· en· W2030553922 on OpenAlexaff
Adenilso Simão, Alexandre Petrenko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Computer Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest suiteFault coverageComputer scienceGeneralizationCompleteness (order theory)Test caseFinite-state machineFault (geology)AlgorithmAutomatic test pattern generationTest (biology)Code coverageProgramming languageMathematicsSoftwareMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a classical problem of complete test generation for deterministic finite-state machines (FSMs) in a more general setting. The first generalization is that the number of states in implementation FSMs can even be smaller than that of the specification FSM. Previous work deals only with the case when the implementation FSMs are allowed to have the same number of states as the specification FSM. This generalization provides more options to the test designer: when traditional methods trigger a test explosion for large specification machines, tests with a lower, but yet guaranteed, fault coverage can still be generated. The second generalization is that tests can be generated starting with a user-defined test suite, by incrementally extending it until the desired fault coverage is achieved. Solving the generalized test derivation problem, we formulate sufficient conditions for test suite completeness weaker than the existing ones and use them to elaborate an algorithm that can be used both for extending user-defined test suites to achieve the desired fault coverage and for test generation. We present the experimental results that indicate that the proposed algorithm allows obtaining a trade-off between the length and fault coverage of test suites.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Computer JournalSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207