Efficient Uniform Sampling of Traces in Presence of Infeasibilities
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: LNCS 14780, Page: 153-174
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Coverage biased random testing of software consists of drawing uniformly at random a large sample of paths from the control graph of a program, or from traces of its specification or model. In order to obtain input values that exercise them, the conditions for following each path/trace are incrementally collected into a formula, which characterises the values that lead to traverse it at run time. A solver is then used for obtaining a test set that ensures the coverage of the sample. A well-known problem is that not all paths/traces correspond to feasible runs. Such infeasible paths/traces must be rejected and others must be drawn to ensure a sufficiently large number of test inputs. This severely limits the interest of the method when there is a high ratio of infeasible paths or traces, as it is often the case. The new technique we propose uses knowledge about the shortest infeasible prefixes of infeasible paths that have been drawn to prevent future drawing of extensions of such prefixes. Starting with uniform drawing from all the paths/traces, the new algorithm incrementally shrinks the drawing domain and remains uniform among the paths/traces that do not have a known infeasible prefix. As the number of infeasible paths/traces is often large, their elimination from the subsequent drawings is a drastic improvement with respect to the simple path rejection method above.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85205121904&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66676-6_8; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-66676-6_8; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66676-6_8; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-66676-6_8
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know