MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548701964 · doi:10.1145/2994291.2994294

PredSym: estimating software testing budget for a bug-free release

2016· article· en· W2548701964 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverfittingSymbolic executionRegression testingSoftwareCode (set theory)Software performance testingCode coverageSoftware bugConcolic testingSoftware testingProgramming languageSoftware engineeringMachine learningSoftware systemSoftware constructionArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symbolic execution tools are widely used during a software testing phase for finding hidden bugs and software vulnerabilities. Accurately predicting the time required by a symbolic execution tool to explore a chosen code coverage helps in planning the budget required in the testing phase. In this work, we present an automatic tool, PredSym, that uses static program features to predict the coverage explored by a symbolic execution tool - KLEE, for a given time budget and to predict the time required to explore a given coverage. PredSym uses LASSO regression to build a model that does not suffer from overfitting and can predict both the coverage and the time with a worst error of 10% on unseen datapoints. PredSym also gives code improvement suggestions based on a heuristic for improving the coverage generated by KLEE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.234 · 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