Can search-based testing with pareto optimization effectively cover failure-revealing test inputs?
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
Abstract Search-based software testing (SBST) is a widely-adopted technique for testing complex systems with large input spaces, such as Deep Learning-enabled (DL-enabled) systems. Many SBST techniques focus on Pareto-based optimization where multiple objectives are optimized in parallel to reveal failures. However, it is important to ensure that identified failures are spread throughout the entire failure-inducing area of a search domain, and not clustered in a sub-region. This ensures that identified failures are semantically diverse and reveal a wide range of underlying causes. In this paper, we present a theoretical argument explaining why testing based on Pareto optimization is inadequate for covering failure-inducing areas within a search domain. We support our argument with empirical results obtained by applying two widely used types of Pareto-based optimization techniques, namely NSGA-II (an evolutionary algorithm) and OMOPSO (a swarm-based algorithm), to two DL-enabled systems: an industrial Automated Valet Parking (AVP) system and a system for classifying handwritten digits. We measure the coverage of failure-revealing test inputs in the input space using a metric, that we refer to as the Coverage Inverted Distance (CID) quality indicator. Our results show that NSGA-II and OMOPSO are not more effective than a naïve random search baseline in covering test inputs that reveal failures. We show that this comparison remains valid for failure-inducing regions of various sizes of these two case studies. Further, we show that incorporating a diversity-focused fitness function as well as a repopulation operator in NSGA-II improves, on average, the coverage difference between NSGA-II and random search by 52.1%. However, even after diversification, NSGA-II still does not outperform random testing in covering test inputs that reveal failures. The replication package for this study is available in a GitHub repository (Replication package. https://github.com/ast-fortiss-tum/coverage-emse-24 2024.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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