Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing
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
There is a growing realization that optimization can be applied to many aspects of the software development process - a research area known as Search- Based Software Engineering (SBSE). Search- Based Software Testing - one of the largest research areas within SBSE - is the process of using searchbased optimization algorithms to specifically address problems in software testing. SBST has been applied to a wide variety of testing goals including structural, functional, non-functional and state-based properties. Many approaches to testing and a wide diverse range of development domains have been addressed, including exceptions, interactions, integration, mutation, regression, and web applications. Work in SBST has developed to the point at which it is now ripe for combination with other areas of software engineering. The common lingua franca that makes these combinations possible is the definition of the fitness function that guides a search algorithm. A fitness function is merely a form of metric, and metrics exist across the entire software engineering spectrum. Therefore, the central objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers and industrial practitioners from SBST and the wider software engineering community to share experience and provide directions for future research, and to encourage the use of search techniques to combine aspects of testing with other aspects of the software engineering lifecycle.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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