MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322489317 · doi:10.1002/stvr.1842

An investigation of distributed computing for combinatorial testing

2023· article· en· W4322489317 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Testing Verification and Reliability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHypergraphComputer scienceGraphTheoretical computer scienceVertex (graph theory)AlgorithmParallel computingMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Combinatorial test generation, also called ‐way testing, is the process of generating sets of input parameters for a system under test, by considering interactions between values of multiple parameters. In order to decrease total testing time, there is an interest in techniques that generate smaller test suites. In our previous work, we used graph techniques to produce high‐quality test suites. However, these techniques require a lot of computing power and memory, which is why this paper investigates distributed computing for ‐way testing. We first introduce our distributed graph colouring method, with new algorithms for building the graph and for colouring it. Second, we present our distributed hypergraph vertex covering method and a new heuristic. Third, we show how to build a distributed IPOG algorithm by leveraging either graph colouring or hypergraph vertex covering as vertical growth algorithms. Finally, we test these new methods on a computer cluster and compare them to existing ‐way testing tools.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.250 · 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