A Novel Evolutionary Approach for Adaptive Random Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random testing is a low cost strategy that can be applied to a wide range of testing problems. While the cost and straightforward application of random testing are appealing, these benefits must be evaluated against the reduced effectiveness due to the generality of the approach. Recently, a number of novel techniques, coined Adaptive Random Testing, have sought to increase the effectiveness of random testing by attempting to maximize the testing coverage of the input domain. This paper presents the novel application of an evolutionary search algorithm to this problem. The results of an extensive simulation study are presented in which the evolutionary approach is compared against the Fixed Size Candidate Set (FSCS), Restricted Random Testing (RRT), quasi-random testing using the Sobol sequence (Sobol), and random testing (RT) methods. The evolutionary approach was found to be superior to FSCS, RRT, Sobol, and RT amongst block patterns, the arena in which FSCS, and RRT have demonstrated the most appreciable gains in testing effectiveness. The results among fault patterns with increased complexity were shown to be similar to those of FSCS, and RRT; and showed a modest improvement over Sobol, and RT. A comparison of the asymptotic and empirical runtimes of the evolutionary search algorithm, and the other testing approaches, was also considered, providing further evidence that the application of an evolutionary search algorithm is feasible, and within the same order of time complexity as the other adaptive random testing approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".