A Data-Driven Approach Towards Software Regression Testing Quality Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software testing is very important in software development to ensure its quality and reliability. As software systems have become more complex, the number of test cases has increased, which presents the challenge of executing all the tests in a limited time frame. Various test case prioritization techniques have been introduced to solve this problem. These methods aim to identify and implement the most critical tests first. In this paper, we propose an implementation of a dynamic test case prioritization strategy to improve software quality by increasing code coverage with special attention to edge case handling. Edge case test prioritization is a technique that improves test efficiency by selecting extreme case scenarios that can reveal critical bugs or unexpected behavior early in development, improving overall software reliability and dependability. In order to prioritize test cases, this paper presents a regression-based method that makes use of machine learning algorithms. The approach leverages previous performance data to optimize regression testing efficiency by examining variables like test time and execution status. Performance evaluations, when compared against industry standards and cutting-edge techniques, show how effective these algorithms are at correctly prioritizing test cases and identifying faults. This study offers simplified yet reliable solutions for regression testing optimization by shedding light on the efficacy of regression algorithms, such as Random Forest and decision trees.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".