An Analysis of LLM Fine-Tuning and Few-Shot Learning for Flaky Test Detection and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flaky tests exhibit non-deterministic behavior during execution and they may pass or fail without any changes to the program under test. Detecting and classifying these flaky tests is crucial for maintaining the robustness of automated test suites and ensuring the overall reliability and confidence in the testing. However, flaky test detection and classification is challenging due to the variability in test behavior, which can depend on environmental conditions and subtle code interactions. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising approaches to address this challenge, with fine-tuning and few-shot learning (FSL) emerging as viable techniques. With enough data fine-tuning a pre-trained LLM can achieve high accuracy, making it suitable for organizations with more resources. Alternatively, we introduce FlakyXbert, an FSL approach that employs a Siamese network architecture to train efficiently with limited data. To understand the performance and cost differences between these two methods, we compare fine-tuning on larger datasets with FSL in scenarios restricted by smaller datasets. Our evaluation involves two existing flaky test datasets, FlakyCat and IDoFT. Our results suggest that while fine-tuning can achieve high accuracy, FSL provides a cost-effective approach with competitive accuracy, which is especially beneficial for organizations or projects with limited historical data available for training. These findings underscore the viability of both fine-tuning and FSL in flaky test detection and classification with each suited to different organizational needs and resource availability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".