MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740565296 · doi:10.1145/3106237.3106258

QTEP: quality-aware test case prioritization

2017· article· en· W2740565296 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCode coverageComputer scienceSource codeSoftware qualityLeverage (statistics)Test caseTest suiteCode (set theory)Code reviewReliability engineeringSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware developmentSet (abstract data type)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test case prioritization (TCP) is a practical activity in software testing for exposing faults earlier. Researchers have proposed many TCP techniques to reorder test cases. Among them, coverage-based TCPs have been widely investigated. Specifically, coverage-based TCP approaches leverage coverage information between source code and test cases, i.e., static code coverage and dynamic code coverage, to schedule test cases. Existing coverage-based TCP techniques mainly focus on maximizing coverage while often do not consider the likely distribution of faults in source code. However, software faults are not often equally distributed in source code, e.g., around 80% faults are located in about 20% source code. Intuitively, test cases that cover the faulty source code should have higher priorities, since they are more likely to find faults.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207