MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248354362 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13273

Comparison of Approaches to Category Partition Specifications, Selection Criteria, and the Impact of the ‘Error’ and ‘Single’ Annotations using Industrial Case Studies

2018· dissertation· en· W4248354362 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

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartition (number theory)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Code (set theory)Reliability engineeringRegression testingCode coverageTest (biology)White-box testingSoftwareData miningMachine learningProgramming languageEngineeringMathematicsSoftware systemSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the significance of software testing, many methods such as black box testing have been introduced in order to make testing as efficient as possible. Experimental evidence is required to attest to the validity of such methods. In this thesis, we conducted experiments on twenty four test suites generated from two case studies targeting a real industrial system for generating financial reports. The experiments aim to evaluate the effectiveness of different Category Partition (CP) specifications on the same problem as well as that of the 'Single' and 'Error' constraints on the same CP specifications. The experiments also evaluate the effectiveness of the three selection criteria of Base-Choice, Each-Choice, and Pair-Wise. The effectiveness is measured in terms of cost, which is the number of generated test cases, fault detection of errors created by mutating code under test, and code coverage using Visual Studio.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.537
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.102 · 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