MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607146905 · doi:10.1002/smr.1868

Extending Category Partition's <scp>B</scp>ase <scp>C</scp>hoice criterion to better support constraints

2017· article· en· W2607146905 on OpenAlexafffund
Sunint Kaur Khalsa, Yvan Labiche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Software Evolution and Process · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPartition (number theory)Base (topology)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsCombinatoricsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To ensure software is performing as intended, it can be black‐box or white‐box tested. Category partition is a black‐box, specification‐based testing technique that begins by identifying the parameters, categories (characteristics of parameters), and choices (acceptable values for categories). These choices are then combined to form test frames on the basis of various criteria such as Base Choice and Each Choice. To ensure that the combinations of choices are feasible, constraints on choices are introduced. Combining choices, while accounting for constraints, to form an each choice adequate test set is feasible (eg, using constrained covering arrays from combinatorial testing). However, the Base Choice criterion has not been defined to specifically account for constraints on choices, resulting in adverse consequences. In this paper, we introduce two extensions to the Base Choice criterion, namely, Constrained Base Choice and Extended Constrained Base Choice to specifically account for (complex) constraints on choices. We use a number of academic and industrial case studies to compare different adequacy criteria, including the new ones, in terms of cost and effectiveness at finding faults. Results show the performance of the new criteria equivalent to a 3‐way combination criterion with a much smaller cost.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Software Evolution and ProcessSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207