Leveraging metamorphic testing to automatically detect inconsistencies in code generator families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Generative software development has paved the way for the creation of multiple code generators that serve as a basis for automatically generating code to different software and hardware platforms. In this context, the software quality becomes highly correlated to the quality of code generators used during software development. Eventual failures may result in a loss of confidence for the developers, who will unlikely continue to use these generators. It is then crucial to verify the correct behaviour of code generators in order to preserve software quality and reliability. In this paper, we leverage the metamorphic testing approach to automatically detect inconsistencies in code generators via so‐called “metamorphic relations”. We define the metamorphic relation (i.e., test oracle) as a comparison between the variations of performance and resource usage of test suites running on different versions of generated code. We rely on statistical methods to find the threshold value from which an unexpected variation is detected. We evaluate our approach by testing a family of code generators with respect to resource usage and performance metrics for five different target software platforms. The experimental results show that our approach is able to detect, among 95 executed test suites, 11 performance and 15 memory usage inconsistencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".