GRT: An Automated Test Generator Using Orchestrated Program Analysis
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
While being highly automated and easy to use, existing techniques of random testing suffer from low code coverage and defect detection ability for practical software applications. Most tools use a pure black-box approach, which does not use knowledge specific to the software under test. Mining and leveraging the information of the software under test can be promising to guide random testing to overcome such limitations. Guided Random Testing (GRT) implements this idea. GRT performs static analysis on software under test to extract relevant knowledge and further combines the information extracted at run-time to guide the whole test generation procedure. GRT is highly configurable, with each of its six program analysis components implemented as a pluggable module whose parameters can be adjusted. Besides generating test cases, GRT also automatically creates a test coverage report. We show our experience in GRT tool development and demonstrate its practical usage using two concrete application scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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