MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243603742 · doi:10.1109/ase.2015.23

Synthesizing Web Element Locators (T)

2015· article· en· W2243603742 on OpenAlexafffund
Kartik Bajaj, Karthik Pattabiraman, Ali Mesbah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacsIntel Corporation
KeywordsJavaScriptComputer scienceDocument Object ModelWeb applicationElement (criminal law)Code (set theory)Web serviceWeb pageWorld Wide WebProgramming languageSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To programmatically interact with the user interface of a web application, element locators are used to select and retrieve elements from the Document Object Model (DOM). Element locators are used in JavaScript code, Cascading stylesheets, and test cases to interact with the runtime DOM of the webpage. Constructing these element locators is, however, challenging due to the dynamic nature of the DOM. We find that locators written by web developers can be quite complex, and involve selecting multiple DOM elements. We present an automated technique for synthesizing DOM element locators using examples provided interactively by the developer. The main insight in our approach is that the problem of synthesizing complex multi-element locators can be expressed as a constraint solving problem over the domain of valid DOM states in a web application. We implemented our synthesis technique in a tool called LED, which provides an interactive drag and drop support inside the browser for selecting positive and negative examples. We find that LED supports at least 86% of the locators used in the JavaScript code of deployed web applications, and that the locators synthesized by LED have a recall of 98% and a precision of 63%. LED is fast, taking only 0.23 seconds on average to synthesize a locator.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207