ВИКОРИСТАННЯ АГРЕГОВАНИХ КРИТЕРІЇВ ДЛЯ ОЦІНКИ ЯКОСТІ ТЕСТІВ ПРОГРАМНОГО ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННЯ
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
An approach to evaluating the software tests quality using aggregated quality criteria is proposed. The article considers the finding of such characteristics of software tests that can be used to judge their quality and their need for improvement. The subject of the study is the formation of a software tests quality evaluation system, which can be used in the software development process. It is proposed to consider a software test as a multiattribute object. It is emphasized that it is necessary to take into account both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of tests and test coverage, which greatly complicates the construction of a model for evaluating the software tests quality. Various approaches to solving the problem of evaluating complex, multiattribute objects are considered. The problem of comparing and ordering complex objects taking into account different criteria is considered. The choice of the method of sequential aggregation of classified states to solve the problem of multi-criteria selection and assessment is justified. The stages of the procedure for solving the estimation problem using the method of sequential aggregation of classified states are considered. An activity diagram is constructed that reflects an algorithm for constructing a hierarchical system of criteria. The criteria for evaluating software tests are given, which belong to three groups - efficiency, coverage, and software implementation. For a hierarchical system of criteria aggregation, a set of indicators, their qualitative gradations with corresponding numerical intervals, are allocated. At the highest level of the hierarchy, it is proposed to use three composite criteria that correspond to the groups of efficiency, coverage and implementation, which will allow to obtain an integral indicator of the software tests quality. The resulting integral indicator includes five quality classes, each of which corresponds to a multitude of low-level indicator estimates. Tests quality evaluation will improve the testing process, which purpose is to ensure the specified quality of the software being developed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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