Using a genetic algorithm and formal concept analysis to generate branch coverage test data automatically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic test generators (ATGs) are an important support tool for large-scale software development. Contemporary ATGs include JTest that does white box testing down to the method level only and black box testing if a specification exists, and AETG that tests pairwise interactions among input variables. The first automatic test generation approaches were static, based on symbolic execution (Clarke, 1976). Korel suggested a dynamic approach to automatic test data generation using function minimization and directed search (Korel, 1990). A dynamic approach can handle array, pointer, function and other dynamic constructs more accurately than a static approach but it may also be more expensive since the program under test is executed repeatedly. Subsequent ATGs explored the use of genetic algorithms (Jones et al., 1996; Michael et al., 2001; Pargas et al., 1999) and simulated annealing (Tracey et al., 1998). These ATGs address the problem of producing test data for low level code coverage like statement, branch and condition/decision and depend on branch function (Korel, 1990) style instrumentation (Jones et al., 1996; Michael et al., 2001) and/or the program graph (Jones et al., 1996; Pargas et al., 1999). Unlike previous work, our ATG, called genet, produces test data for branch coverage with simpler instrumentation than branch functions, does not use program graphs, and is programming language independent, genet uses a genetic algorithm (GA) (Holland, 1975) to search for tests and formal concept analysis (FCA) (Ganter and Wille, 1999) to organize the relationships between tests and their execution traces. The combination of GA with FCA is novel. Further, genet extends the opportunistic approach of GADGET (Michael et al., 2001) by targeting several uncovered branches simultaneously. The relationships that genet learns provides useful insights for test selection, test maintenance and debugging
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".