MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967858513 · doi:10.1145/3338906.3338908

Concolic testing for models of state-based systems

2019· article· en· W2967858513 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Ahmadi, Juergen Dingel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcolic testingComputer scienceWhite-box testingModel-based testingSymbolic executionTest caseIntegration testingSystem under testBenchmark (surveying)Keyword-driven testingRandom testingUnified Modeling LanguageManual testingTest strategyCode coverageNon-regression testingUnit testingContext (archaeology)System testingRegression testingSoftwareSoftware engineeringProgramming languageSoftware systemMachine learningSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing models of modern cyber-physical systems is not straightforward due to timing constraints, numerous if not infinite possible behaviors, and complex communications between components. Software testing tools and approaches that can generate test cases to test these systems are therefore important. Many of the existing automatic approaches support testing at the implementation level only. The existing model-level testing tools either treat the model as a black box (e.g., random testing approaches) or have limitations when it comes to generating complex test sequences (e.g., symbolic execution). This paper presents a novel approach and tool support for automatic unit testing of models of real-time embedded systems by conducting concolic testing, a hybrid testing technique based on concrete and symbolic execution. Our technique conducts automatic concolic testing in two phases. In the first phase, model is isolated from its environment, is transformed to a testable model and is integrated with a test harness. In the second phase, the harness tests the model concolically and reports the test execution results. We describe an implementation of our approach in the context of Papyrus-RT, an open source Model Driven Engineering (MDE) tool based on the modeling language UML-RT, and report the results of applying our concolic testing approach to a set of standard benchmark models to validate our approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207