MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280650798 · doi:10.18280/ria.360217

Combinatorial Test Case Generation Using Q-Value Based Particle Swarm Optimization

2022· article· en· W4280650798 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationPairwise comparisonMathematical optimizationComputer scienceTest caseHeuristicMetaheuristicSet (abstract data type)Value (mathematics)Fitness functionFunction (biology)Swarm behaviourAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGenetic algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combinatorial testing is an effective method for generating test cases. Pairwise testing is a combinatorial approach that evaluates the interactions between the input test parameters while reducing test case size by selecting a broader search area. Most combinatorial testing research focuses on developing novel approaches for generating an optimal number of test cases that cover pairwise combinations of input test parameters. Using existing test case generation techniques, optimal or near-optimal combinatorial test cases are generated in polynomial time. The authors presented the Q-value-based Particle Swarm Optimization (Q-PSO) technique for efficiently and effectively generating an optimal number of test cases. The primary goals of the proposed technique are to generate test cases using a Q-value based PSO, which is easier to build and has fewer parameters to define than other meta-heuristic search methodologies and to put the proposed technique into practice and report on an empirical study that examines and verifies the significant impact factors in the proposed approach. Q-value is used to evaluate the particles (referred to as test cases) in the Q-PSO. The reward is totalled in the Q-value, which serves as the fitness function for PSO evolution. The Q-value of each particle determines its performance and indicates how quickly the particle can lead the system's state to the set of objective states. The authors used the Q-PSO technique to validate the efficiency and efficacy of the proposed approach. The Q-PSO technique's results are compared to existing metaheuristics and computation-based techniques. In most inputs based on the development environment, meta-heuristic search techniques take significantly longer than other greedy techniques. For some inputs, the proposed Q-PSO technique outperforms existing meta-heuristics techniques. Q-PSO results are also compared to IPOG, ITCH, Jenny, TConfig, TVG, and other well-known computational-based techniques. The goal of the comparison is to examine how the size of the test cases generated has grown over time.

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)0.000
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 score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.221 · 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