Easy over Hard: A Simple Baseline for Test Failures Causes Prediction
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
The test failure causes analysis is critical since it determines the subsequent way of handling different types of bugs, which is the prerequisite to get the bugs properly analyzed and fixed. After a test case fails, software testers have to inspect the test execution logs line by line to identify its root cause. However, manual root cause determination is often tedious and time-consuming, which can cost 30-40% of the time needed to fix a problem. Therefore, there is a need for automatically predicting the test failure causes to lighten the burden of software testers. In this paper, we present a simple but hard-to-beat approach, named NCChecker (Naive Failure Cause Checker), to automatically identify the failure causes for failed test logs. Our approach can help developers efficiently identify the test failure causes, and flag the most probable log lines of indicating the root causes for investigation. Our approach has three main stages: log abstraction, lookup table construction, and failure causes prediction. We first perform log abstraction to parse the unstructured log messages into structured log events. NCChecker then automatically maintains and updates a lookup table via employing our heuristic rules, which record the matching score between different log events and test failure causes. When it comes to the failure cause prediction stage, for a newly generated failed test log, NCChecker can easily infer its failed reason by checking out the associated log events' scores from the lookup table. We have developed a prototype and evaluated our tool on a real-world industrial dataset with more than 10K test logs. The extensive experiments show the promising performance of our model over a set of benchmarks. Moreover, our approach is highly efficient and memory-saving, and can successfully handle the data imbalance problem. Considering the effectiveness and simplicity of our approach, we recommend relevant practitioners to adopt our approach as a baseline to beat in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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