Search-Based Software Testing Driven by Automatically Generated and Manually Defined Fitness Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search-based software testing (SBST) typically relies on fitness functions to guide the search exploration toward software failures. There are two main techniques to define fitness functions: (a) automated fitness function computation from the specification of the system requirements, and (b) manual fitness function design. Both techniques have advantages. The former uses information from the system requirements to guide the search toward portions of the input domain more likely to contain failures. The latter uses the engineers’ domain knowledge. We propose ATheNA , a novel SBST framework that combines fitness functions automatically generated from requirements specifications and those manually defined by engineers. We design and implement ATheNA-S , an instance of ATheNA that targets Simulink ® models. We evaluate ATheNA-S by considering a large set of models from different domains. Our results show that ATheNA-S generates more failure-revealing test cases than existing baseline tools and that the difference between the runtime performance of ATheNA-S and the baseline tools is not statistically significant. We also assess whether ATheNA-S could generate failure-revealing test cases when applied to two representative case studies: one from the automotive domain and one from the medical domain. Our results show that ATheNA-S successfully revealed a requirement violation in our case studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".