MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing Test Case Reduction in CI/CD Pipelines Using Integer Linear Programming

2025· article· W7125608420 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Ontario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest suiteTest caseReduction (mathematics)System under testPipeline transportTest (biology)Integer programmingTest Management ApproachSoftware deploymentSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern software development, Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines rely on the frequent execution of large test suites to detect regressions and maintain system reliability. However, executing the full suite in every build cycle imposes significant time and resource costs. While recent advancements in machine learning have enabled the prediction of test case failures, allowing for selective test execution, they may still lead to suboptimal coverage or high failure miss rates. This paper presents an optimization-based test case reduction approach that aims to minimize the number of wrongly eliminated test cases that would have failed in execution. By utilizing feature-engineered historical data from prior test executions, we compute a criticality score for each test case and use ILP to select an optimal subset to retain. This formulation minimizes the number of failed test cases that are wrongly excluded, while constraining test suite size to a desired execution range. We evaluate the method across large quantities of tests and demonstrate the practical viability of ILP-based test case reduction optimization for CI/CD pipelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it