On factors that impact the relationship between code coverage and test suite effectiveness: a survey
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
Code coverage criteria define test objectives and provide actionable stopping conditions for creating test cases. They are also widely accepted as indicators of a test suite’s fault detection effectiveness. Several factors influence the relationship between code coverage and test suite effectiveness. However, previous empirical studies investigating this relationship tend to fail to control some of these factors, resulting in contradictory results. Through a systematic review of 417 previous studies investigating the effectiveness of test suites from various venues, such as journals, conferences, workshops, and book chapters, we have identified several factors that can impact experimental studies’ results and even threaten their validity. Some of these factors are well known, such as the test suite size (the number of test cases in the test suite), while some others are relatively unknown, such as the variety of execution traces (how different are test cases within a test suite in terms of structural coverage level). The list of factors we describe should be of interest to researchers and practitioners alike.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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