MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105178636 · doi:10.1145/3368089.3409737

Mining assumptions for software components using machine learning

2020· article· en· W3105178636 on OpenAlexafffund
Khouloud Gaaloul, Claudio Menghi, Shiva Nejati, Lionel Briand, David Wolfe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgEuropean CommissionH2020 European Research CouncilUniversité du Luxembourg
KeywordsComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningTest caseSoftwareDecision treeProcess (computing)Tree (set theory)Artificial intelligenceComponent-based software engineeringSoftware systemData miningProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software verification approaches aim to check a software component under analysis for all possible environments. In reality, however, components are expected to operate within a larger system and are required to satisfy their requirements only when their inputs are constrained by environment assumptions. In this paper, we propose EPIcuRus, an approach to automatically synthesize environment assumptions for a component under analysis (i.e., conditions on the component inputs under which the component is guaranteed to satisfy its requirements). EPIcuRus combines search-based testing, machine learning and model checking. The core of EPIcuRus is a decision tree algorithm that infers environment assumptions from a set of test results including test cases and their verdicts. The test cases are generated using search-based testing, and the assumptions inferred by decision trees are validated through model checking. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the assumption generation process, we propose a novel test case generation technique, namely Important Features Boundary Test (IFBT), that guides the test generation based on the feedback produced by machine learning. We evaluated EPIcuRus by assessing its effectiveness in computing assumptions on a set of study subjects that include 18 requirements of four industrial models. We show that, for each of the 18 requirements, EPIcuRus was able to compute an assumption to ensure the satisfaction of that requirement, and further, ≈78% of these assumptions were computed in one hour.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207