MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951101154 · doi:10.1109/icstw.2019.00029

Using Imprecise Test Oracles Modelled by FSM

2019· article· en· W2951101154 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 institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOracleNondeterministic algorithmComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Finite-state machineConformance testingSet (abstract data type)Test caseTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test oracles are usually used to evaluate the behaviors of systems under test to reveal faults. In a typical conformance testing scenario, a test oracle is a deterministic finite state machine (FSM). However, uncertainty occurring in the design of an oracle may result in a set of potential candidate oracles which can compactly be represented by a nondeterministic FSM thus modelling an imprecise test oracle. In the context of testing deterministic systems, such an oracle should ideally be reduced to a precise, i.e., deterministic oracle. We elaborate two scenarios for dealing with imprecise test oracles that involve a domain expert playing the role of an "ultimate" oracle. In the first scenario, the expert chooses a right oracle by inspecting the generated tests differentiating all potential precise oracles which can be derived from a given imprecise one. In the second scenario, the expert evaluates tests one by one while they are generated, and the imprecise oracle is iteratively reduced until a single precise oracle remains, if at all.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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