MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166103344 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1999.807212

Formal test requirements for component interactions

2003· article· en· W2166103344 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntegration testingConcurrencyUnit testingComponent (thermodynamics)Model-based testingFormal methodsConformance testingTest caseFormal specificationTest (biology)Software engineeringProgramming languageReliability engineeringSoftwareMachine learningEngineeringStandardization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major issue in testing the integration of software components is the selection of tests to ensure that the components work together correctly. The goal is to detect subtle interaction errors without duplicating the work performed in unit testing. Our approach is to capture the assumptions made by each component about how other components should interact with it. The assumptions are captured as formal test requirements that specify what test cases are needed to exercise the interactions. We model the interactions of components using a simple mathematical model that allows concurrency and synchronous communications. The test requirements, together with formal models of the components, are used to generate actual test cases for integration testing. They can be reused when more components are integrated, and when components are changed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.263 · 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