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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
App testing tools tend to generate thousand test inputs; they help engineers identify crashing conditions but not functional failures. Indeed, detecting functional failures requires the visual inspection of App outputs, which is infeasible for thousands of inputs. Existing App testing tools ignore that most of the Apps are frequently updated and engineers are mainly interested in testing the updated functionalities; indeed, automated regression test cases can be used otherwise. We present ATUA, an open source tool targeting Android Apps. It achieves high coverage of the updated App code with a small number of test inputs, thus alleviating the test oracle problem (less outputs to inspect). It implements a model-based approach that synthesizes App models with static analysis, integrates a dynamically-refined state abstraction function and combines complementary testing strategies, including (1) coverage of the model structure, (2) coverage of the App code, (3) random exploration, and (4) coverage of dependencies identified through information retrieval. Our empirical evaluation, conducted with nine popular Android Apps (72 versions), has shown that ATUA, compared to state-of-the-art approaches, achieves higher code coverage while producing fewer outputs to be manually inspected. A demo video is available at https://youtu.be/RqQ1z_Nkaqo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it