Answer-Set Programming as a new Approach to Event-Sequence Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—In many applications, faults are triggered by events that occur in a particular order. Based on the assumption that most bugs are caused by the interaction of a low number of events, Kuhn et al. recently introduced sequence covering arrays (SCAs) as suitable designs for event sequence testing. In practice, directly applying SCAs for testing is often impaired by additional constraints, and SCAs have to be adapted to fit application-specific needs. Modifying precomputed SCAs to account for problem variations can be problematic, if not impossible, and developing dedicated algorithms is costly. In this paper, we propose answer-set programming (ASP), a wellknown knowledge-representation formalism from the area of artificial intelligence based on logic programming, as a declarative paradigm for computing SCAs. Our approach allows to concisely state complex coverage criteria in an elaboration tolerant way, i.e., small variations of a problem specification require only small modifications of the ASP representation. Keywords-event-sequence testing; combinatorial interaction testing; answer-set programming. I.
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 | 0.047 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".