MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MASS: A tool for Mutation Analysis of Space CPS

2022· article· en· W4282835086 on OpenAlexafffund
Oscar Cornejo, Fabrizio Pastore, Lionel Briand

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEuropean Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceContext (archaeology)SoftwareSet (abstract data type)MutationOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present MASS, a mutation analysis tool for embedded software in cyber-physical systems (CPS). We target space CPS (e.g., satellites) and other CPS with similar characteristics (e.g., UAV).Mutation analysis measures the quality of test suites in terms of the percentage of detected artificial faults. There are many mutation analysis tools available but they are inapplicable to CPS because of scalability and accuracy challenges.To overcome such limitations, MASS implements a set of optimization techniques that enable the applicability of mutation analysis and address scalability and accuracy in the CPS context. MASS has been successfully evaluated on a large study involving embedded software systems provided by industry partners; the study includes an on-board software system managing a microsatellite currently on-orbit, a set of libraries used in deployed cubesats, and a mathematical library provided by the European Space Agency. A demo video of MASS is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC1x9cU0-tU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion)Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207