MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174824587 · doi:10.21467/proceedings.115.25

A Machine Learning Based Approach for Software Test Case Selection

2021· article· en· W3174824587 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIJR Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRegression testingMachine learningFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceSoftwareSelection (genetic algorithm)Categorical variableTest dataTest (biology)Task (project management)Test caseSoftware regressionData miningSoftware systemSoftware qualitySoftware developmentSoftware constructionSoftware engineeringRegression analysisProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing is conducted after developing each software to detect the defects which are then removed. However, it is very difficult task to test a non-trivial software completely. Hence, it’s important to test the software with important test cases. In this research, we developed a machine learning based software test case selection strategy for regression testing. To develop the method, we first clean and preprocess the data. Then we convet the categorical data to its numerical value. The we implement a natural language processing to calculate bag of features for text feature such as testcase title. We evaluate different machine learning models for test case selection. Experimental results demonstrate that machine learning based models can aovid manual labour of the domain experts for test case selection.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
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