Prioritizing Natural Language Test Cases Based on Highly-Used Game Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software testing is still a manual activity in many industries, such as the gaming industry. But manually executing tests becomes impractical as the system grows and resources are restricted, mainly in a scenario with short release cycles. Test case prioritization is a commonly used technique to optimize the test execution. However, most prioritization approaches do not work for manual test cases as they require source code information or test execution history, which is often not available in a manual testing scenario. In this paper, we propose a prioritization approach for manual test cases written in natural language based on the tested application features (in particular, highly-used application features). Our approach consists of (1) identifying the tested features from natural language test cases (with zero-shot classification techniques) and (2) prioritizing test cases based on the features that they test. We leveraged the NSGA-II genetic algorithm for the multi-objective optimization of the test case ordering to maximize the coverage of highly-used features while minimizing the cumulative execution time. Our findings show that we can successfully identify the application features covered by test cases using an ensemble of pre-trained models with strong zero-shot capabilities (an F-score of 76.1%). Also, our prioritization approaches can find test case orderings that cover highly-used application features early in the test execution while keeping the time required to execute test cases short. QA engineers can use our approach to focus the test execution on test cases that cover features that are relevant to users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".