LTM: Scalable and Black-Box Similarity-Based Test Suite Minimization Based on Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test suites tend to grow when software evolves, making it often infeasible to execute all test cases with the allocated testing budgets, especially for large software systems. Test suite minimization (TSM) is employed to improve the efficiency of software testing by removing redundant test cases, thus reducing testing time and resources while maintaining the fault detection capability of the test suite. Most existing TSM approaches rely on code coverage (white-box) or model-based features, which are not always available to test engineers. Recent TSM approaches that rely only on test code (black-box) have been proposed, such as ATM and FAST-R. The former yields higher fault detection rates (FDR) while the latter is faster. To address scalability while retaining a highFDR, we propose LTM (Language model-basedTest suiteMinimization), a novel, scalable, and black-box similarity-based TSM approach based on large language models (LLMs), which is the first application of LLMs in the context of TSM. To support similarity measurement using test method embeddings, we investigate five different pre-trained language models: CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, UniXcoder, StarEncoder, and CodeLlama, on which we compute two similarity measures: Cosine Similarity and Euclidean Distance. Our goal is to find similarity measures that are not only computationally more efficient but can also better guide a Genetic Algorithm (GA), which is used to search for optimal minimized test suites, thus reducing the overall search time. Experimental results show that the best configuration of LTM (UniXcoder/Cosine) outperforms ATM in three aspects: (a) achieving a slightly greater saving rate of testing time ($41.72\%$versus$41.02\%$, on average); (b) attaining a significantly higher fault detection rate ($0.84$versus$0.81$, on average); and, most importantly, (c) minimizing test suites nearly five times faster on average, with higher gains for larger test suites and systems, thus achieving much higher scalability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".