Regression test suite prioritization using system models
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
SUMMARY During regression testing, a modified system is often retested using an existing test suite. Since the size of the test suite may be very large, testers are interested in detecting faults in the modified system as early as possible during this retesting process. Test prioritization attempts to order tests for execution so that the chances of early detection of faults during retesting are increased. The existing prioritization methods are based on the source code of the system under test. In this paper, we present and evaluate two model‐based selective methods and a dependence‐based method of test prioritization utilizing the state‐based model of the system under test. These methods assume that the modifications are made both on the system under test and its model. The existing test suite is executed on the system model and information about this execution is used to prioritize tests. Execution of the model is inexpensive as compared with execution of the system under test; therefore, the overhead associated with test prioritization is relatively small. In addition, we present an analytical framework for evaluation of test prioritization methods. This framework may reduce the cost of evaluation as compared with the framework that is based on observation. We have performed an empirical study in which we compared different test prioritization methods. The results of the empirical study suggest that system models may improve the effectiveness of test prioritization with respect to early fault detection. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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