An exploratory empirical eye-tracker study of visualization techniques for coverage of combinatorial interaction testing in software product lines
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
Software Product Lines (SPLs) typically provide a large number of configurations to cater to a set of diverse requirements of specific markets. This large number of configurations renders unfeasible to test them all individually. Instead, Combinatorial Interaction Testing (CIT) computes a representative sample according to criteria of the interactions of features in the configurations. We performed an empirical study using eye-tracker technologies to analyze the effectiveness of two basic visualization techniques at conveying test coverage information of ten case studies of varying complexity. Our evaluation considered response accuracy, time-on-task, metacognitive monitoring, and visual attention. The study revealed clear advantages of a visualization technique over the other in three evaluation aspects, with a reverse effect depending on the strength of the coverage and distinct areas of visual attention. • Study of visualization techniques for interaction testing of Software Product Lines. • Analysis of visual attention using eye-trackers for coverage testing tasks. • Scatter plots and Parallel dimensions plots offer different performance trade-offs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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