A Cost-Effective Approach for Hyper-Parameter Tuning in Search-based Test Case Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search-based test case generation, which is the application of meta-heuristic search for generating test cases, has been studied a lot in the literature, lately. Since, in theory, the performance of meta-heuristic search methods is highly dependent on their hyper-parameters, there is a need to study hyper-parameter tuning in this domain. In this paper, we propose a new metric ("Tuning Gain"), which estimates how cost-effective tuning a particular class is. We then predict "Tuning Gain" using static features of source code classes. Finally, we prioritize classes for tuning, based on the estimated "Tuning Gains" and spend the tuning budget only on the highly-ranked classes. To evaluate our approach, we exhaustively analyze 1,200 hyper-parameter configurations of a well-known search-based test generation tool (EvoSuite) for 250 classes of 19 projects from benchmarks such as SF110 and SBST2018 tool competition. We used a tuning approach called Meta-GA and compared the tuning results with and without the proposed class prioritization. The results show that for a low tuning budget, prioritizing classes outperforms the alternatives in terms of extra covered branches (10 times more than a traditional global tuning). However, as the budget increases class selection will not be as effective, but still tuning in the class-level outperforms global tuning, by far.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".