A similarity-based approach for test case prioritization using historical failure data
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
Test case prioritization is a crucial element in software quality assurance in practice, specially, in the context of regression testing. Typically, test cases are prioritized in a way that they detect the potential faults earlier. The effectiveness of test cases, in terms of fault detection, is estimated using quality metrics, such as code coverage, size, and historical fault detection. Prior studies have shown that previously failing test cases are highly likely to fail again in the next releases, therefore, they are highly ranked, while prioritizing. However, in practice, a failing test case may not be exactly the same as a previously failed test case, but quite similar, e.g., when the new failing test is a slightly modified version of an old failing one to catch an undetected fault. In this paper, we define a class of metrics that estimate the test cases quality using their similarity to the previously failing test cases. We have conducted several experiments with five real world open source software systems, with real faults, to evaluate the effectiveness of these quality metrics. The results of our study show that our proposed similarity-based quality measure is significantly more effective for prioritizing test cases compared to existing test case quality measures.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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