MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TEST CLUSTER SELECTION USING COVER COEFFICIENTS

2015· article· en· W4248677059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahadevan Subramaniam, Parvathi Chundi

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Cover (algebra)StatisticsTest (biology)Cluster (spacecraft)MathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering test profiles to retrieve relevant tests is a recurring theme in software validation. A novel clustering approach using a probabilistic notion of coverage among line-based test profiles is described. The approach automatically determines the number of clusters to generate a clustering and can potentially group together tests to execute a few distinct lines of code. A simple method to identify tests affected by program changes is developed and used to determine the retrieval effort needed for cluster-based retrieval of affected tests. The approach is applied to four unix utility programs from a popular testing benchmark. Our results show that comparing original and new clusterings with respect to test cases is a promising criterion for deciding the potential re-clustering points in software evolution.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware EngineeringSame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207