Murphy Tools: Utilizing Extracted GUI Models for Industrial Software Testing
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
One of the main challenges in adopting model-based testing (MBT) is the effort and expertise required to produce the formal models. For an existing system, there are various approaches to automate the process of creating the models. In this paper, we share our experiences from a long term industrial evaluation on automatically extracting models of graphical user interface (GUI) applications and utilizing the extracted models to automate and support GUI testing. While model extraction and GUI testing has been recently a popular research topic, most proposed approaches have limitations on what can be modeled and industry adoption has been lacking. We describe the process of using Murphy tools to extract GUI models and utilize these models to automate and support various testing activities. During the evaluation, test engineers of an industrial software company used Murphy tools to support their daily efforts in testing commercial software products during 1 year time period. The results from the evaluation were promising, significantly reducing time and effort required for GUI testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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