Understanding and Enhancing Attribute Prioritization in Fixing Web UI Tests with LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid evolution of Web UI incurs time and effort in UI test maintenance. Prior techniques in Web UI test repair focus on locating the target elements on the new Webpage that match the old ones so that the corresponding broken statements can be repaired. These techniques usually rely on prioritizing certain attributes (e.g., XPath) during matching where the similarity of certain attributes is ranked before other attributes, indicating that there may be bias towards certain attributes during matching. To mitigate the bias, we present the first study that investigates the feasibility of using prior Web UI repair techniques for initial matching and then using ChatGPT to perform subsequent matching. Our key insight is that given a list of elements matched by prior techniques, ChatGPT can leverage language understanding to perform subsequent matching and use its code generation model for fixing the broken statements. To mitigate hallucination in ChatGPT, we design an explanation validator that checks if the provided explanation for the matching results is consistent, and provides hints to ChatGPT via a self-correction prompt to further improve its results. Our evaluation on a widely used dataset shows that the ChatGPT-enhanced techniques improve the effectiveness of existing Web test repair techniques. Our study also shares several important insights in improving future Web UI test repair techniques.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".