Semantic Constraint Inference for Web Form Test Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated test generation for web forms has been a longstanding challenge, exacerbated by the intrinsic human-centric design of forms and their complex, device-agnostic structures. We introduce an innovative approach, called FormNexus, for automated web form test generation, which emphasizes deriving semantic insights from individual form elements and relations among them, utilizing textual content, DOM tree structures, and visual proximity. The insights gathered are transformed into a new conceptual graph, the Form Entity Relation Graph (FERG), which offers machine-friendly semantic information extraction. Leveraging LLMs, FormNexus adopts a feedback-driven mechanism for generating and refining input constraints based on real-time form submission responses. The culmination of this approach is a robust set of test cases, each produced by methodically invalidating constraints, ensuring comprehensive testing scenarios for web forms. This work bridges the existing gap in automated web form testing by intertwining the capabilities of LLMs with advanced semantic inference methods. Our evaluation demonstrates that FormNexus combined with GPT-4 achieves 89% coverage in form submission states. This outcome significantly outstrips the performance of the best baseline model by a margin of 25%.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".