Large Language Models for Automated Web-Form-Test Generation: An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing web forms is an essential activity for ensuring the quality of web applications. It typically involves evaluating the interactions between users and forms. Automated test-case generation remains a challenge for web-form testing: Due to the complex, multi-level structure of Web pages, it can be difficult to automatically capture their inherent contextual information for inclusion in the tests. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential for contextual text generation. This motivated us to explore how they could generate automated tests for web forms, making use of the contextual information within form elements. To the best of our knowledge, no comparative study examining different LLMs has yet been reported for web-form-test generation. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a comprehensive empirical study investigating the effectiveness of 11 LLMs on 146 web forms from 30 open source Java web applications. In addition, we propose three HTML-structure-pruning methods to extract key contextual information. The experimental results show that different LLMs can achieve different testing effectiveness, with the GPT-4, GLM-4, and Baichuan2 LLMs generating the best web-form tests. Compared with GPT-4, the other LLMs had difficulty generating appropriate tests for the web forms: Their Successfully Submitted Rates (SSRs)—the proportions of the LLMs-generated web-form tests that could be successfully inserted into the web forms and submitted—decreased by 9.10% to 74.15%. Our findings also show that, for all LLMs, when the designed prompts include complete and clear contextual information about the web forms, more effective web-form tests were generated. Specifically, when using Parser-Processed HTML for Task Prompt (PH-P), the SSR averaged 70.63%, higher than the 60.21% for Raw HTML for Task Prompt (RH-P) and 50.27% for LLM-Processed HTML for Task Prompt (LH-P). With RH-P, GPT-4’s SSR was 98.86%, outperforming models like LLaMa2 (7B) with 34.47% and GLM-4V with 0%. Similarly, with PH-P, GPT-4 reached an SSR of 99.54%, the highest among all models and prompt types. Finally, this article also highlights strategies for selecting LLMs based on performance metrics, and for optimizing the prompt design to improve the quality of the web-form tests.
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 | 0.021 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".