Test oracle assessment and improvement

We introduce a technique for assessing and improving test oracles by reducing the incidence of both false positives and false negatives. We prove that our approach can always result in an increase in the mutual information between the actual and perfect oracles. Our technique combines test case generation to reveal false positives and mutation testing to reveal false negatives. We applied the decision support tool that implements our oracle improvement technique to five real-world subjects. The experimental results show that the fault detection rate of the oracles after improvement increases, on average, by 48.6% (86% over the implicit oracle). Three actual, exposed faults in the studied systems were subsequently confirmed and fixed by the developers

On the use of testability measures for dependability assessment

Program “testability” is informally, the probability that a program will fail under test if it contains at least one fault. When a dependability assessment has to be derived from the observation of a series of failure free test executions (a common need for software subject to “ultra high reliability” requirements), measures of testability can-in theory-be used to draw inferences on program correctness. We rigorously investigate the concept of testability and its use in dependability assessment, criticizing, and improving on, previously published results. We give a general descriptive model of program execution and testing, on which the different measures of interest can be defined. We propose a more precise definition of program testability than that given by other authors, and discuss how to increase testing effectiveness without impairing program reliability in operation. We then study the mathematics of using testability to estimate, from test results: the probability of program correctness and the probability of failures. To derive the probability of program correctness, we use a Bayesian inference procedure and argue that this is more useful than deriving a classical “confidence level”. We also show that a high testability is not an unconditionally desirable property for a program. In particular, for programs complex enough that they are unlikely to be completely fault free, increasing testability may produce a program which will be less trustworthy, even after successful testin

Learning Effective Changes for Software Projects

The primary motivation of much of software analytics is decision making. How to make these decisions? Should one make decisions based on lessons that arise from within a particular project? Or should one generate these decisions from across multiple projects? This work is an attempt to answer these questions. Our work was motivated by a realization that much of the current generation software analytics tools focus primarily on prediction. Indeed prediction is a useful task, but it is usually followed by "planning" about what actions need to be taken. This research seeks to address the planning task by seeking methods that support actionable analytics that offer clear guidance on what to do. Specifically, we propose XTREE and BELLTREE algorithms for generating a set of actionable plans within and across projects. Each of these plans, if followed will improve the quality of the software project.Comment: 4 pages, 2 figures. This a submission for ASE 2017 Doctoral Symposiu

The use of multilegged arguments to increase confidence in safety claims for software-based systems: A study based on a BBN analysis of an idealized example

The work described here concerns the use of so-called multi-legged arguments to support dependability claims about software-based systems. The informal justification for the use of multi-legged arguments is similar to that used to support the use of multi-version software in pursuit of high reliability or safety. Just as a diverse, 1-out-of-2 system might be expected to be more reliable than each of its two component versions, so a two-legged argument might be expected to give greater confidence in the correctness of a dependability claim (e.g. a safety claim) than would either of the argument legs alone. Our intention here is to treat these argument structures formally, in particular by presenting a formal probabilistic treatment of ‘confidence’, which will be used as a measure of efficacy. This will enable claims for the efficacy of the multi-legged approach to be made quantitatively, answering questions such as ‘How much extra confidence about a system’s safety will I have if I add a verification argument leg to an argument leg based upon statistical testing?’ For this initial study, we concentrate on a simplified and idealized example of a safety system in which interest centres upon a claim about the probability of failure on demand. Our approach is to build a BBN (“Bayesian Belief Network”) model of a two-legged argument, and manipulate this analytically via parameters that define its node probability tables. The aim here is to obtain greater insight than is afforded by the more usual BBN treatment, which involves merely numerical manipulation. We show that the addition of a diverse second argument leg can, indeed, increase confidence in a dependability claim: in a reasonably plausible example the doubt in the claim is reduced to one third of the doubt present in the original single leg. However, we also show that there can be some unexpected and counter-intuitive subtleties here; for example an entirely supportive second leg can sometimes undermine an original argument, resulting overall in less confidence than came from this original argument. Our results are neutral on the issue of whether such difficulties will arise in real life - i.e. when real experts judge real systems

TLAD 2010 Proceedings:8th international workshop on teaching, learning and assesment of databases (TLAD)

This is the eighth in the series of highly successful international workshops on the Teaching, Learning and Assessment of Databases (TLAD 2010), which once again is held as a workshop of BNCOD 2010 - the 27th International Information Systems Conference. TLAD 2010 is held on the 28th June at the beautiful Dudhope Castle at the Abertay University, just before BNCOD, and hopes to be just as successful as its predecessors.The teaching of databases is central to all Computing Science, Software Engineering, Information Systems and Information Technology courses, and this year, the workshop aims to continue the tradition of bringing together both database teachers and researchers, in order to share good learning, teaching and assessment practice and experience, and further the growing community amongst database academics. As well as attracting academics from the UK community, the workshop has also been successful in attracting academics from the wider international community, through serving on the programme committee, and attending and presenting papers.This year, the workshop includes an invited talk given by Richard Cooper (of the University of Glasgow) who will present a discussion and some results from the Database Disciplinary Commons which was held in the UK over the academic year. Due to the healthy number of high quality submissions this year, the workshop will also present seven peer reviewed papers, and six refereed poster papers. Of the seven presented papers, three will be presented as full papers and four as short papers. These papers and posters cover a number of themes, including: approaches to teaching databases, e.g. group centered and problem based learning; use of novel case studies, e.g. forensics and XML data; techniques and approaches for improving teaching and student learning processes; assessment techniques, e.g. peer review; methods for improving students abilities to develop database queries and develop E-R diagrams; and e-learning platforms for supporting teaching and learning