Assessing Evaluation Metrics for Neural Test Oracle Generation

IF 6.5 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1109/TSE.2024.3433463
Jiho Shin;Hadi Hemmati;Moshi Wei;Song Wang
{"title":"Assessing Evaluation Metrics for Neural Test Oracle Generation","authors":"Jiho Shin;Hadi Hemmati;Moshi Wei;Song Wang","doi":"10.1109/TSE.2024.3433463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, deep learning models have shown promising results in test oracle generation. Neural Oracle Generation (NOG) models are commonly evaluated using static (automatic) metrics which are mainly based on textual similarity of the output, e.g. BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, and Accuracy. However, these textual similarity metrics may not reflect the testing effectiveness of the generated oracle within a test suite, which is often measured by dynamic (execution-based) test adequacy metrics such as code coverage and mutation score. In this work, we revisit existing oracle generation studies plus \n<italic>gpt-3.5</i>\n to empirically investigate the current standing of their performance in textual similarity and test adequacy metrics. Specifically, we train and run four state-of-the-art test oracle generation models on seven textual similarity and two test adequacy metrics for our analysis. We apply two different correlation analyses between these two different sets of metrics. Surprisingly, we found no significant correlation between the textual similarity metrics and test adequacy metrics. For instance, \n<italic>gpt-3.5</i>\n on the \n<italic>jackrabbit-oak</i>\n project had the highest performance on all seven textual similarity metrics among the studied NOGs. However, it had the lowest test adequacy metrics compared to all the studied NOGs. We further conducted a qualitative analysis to explore the reasons behind our observations. We found that oracles with high textual similarity metrics but low test adequacy metrics tend to have complex or multiple chained method invocations within the oracle's parameters, making them hard for the model to generate completely, affecting the test adequacy metrics. On the other hand, oracles with low textual similarity metrics but high test adequacy metrics tend to have to call different assertion types or a different method that functions similarly to the ones in the ground truth. Overall, this work complements prior studies on test oracle generation with an extensive performance evaluation on textual similarity and test adequacy metrics and provides guidelines for better assessment of deep learning applications in software test generation in the future.","PeriodicalId":13324,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering","volume":"50 9","pages":"2337-2349"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10609742/","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recently, deep learning models have shown promising results in test oracle generation. Neural Oracle Generation (NOG) models are commonly evaluated using static (automatic) metrics which are mainly based on textual similarity of the output, e.g. BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, and Accuracy. However, these textual similarity metrics may not reflect the testing effectiveness of the generated oracle within a test suite, which is often measured by dynamic (execution-based) test adequacy metrics such as code coverage and mutation score. In this work, we revisit existing oracle generation studies plus gpt-3.5 to empirically investigate the current standing of their performance in textual similarity and test adequacy metrics. Specifically, we train and run four state-of-the-art test oracle generation models on seven textual similarity and two test adequacy metrics for our analysis. We apply two different correlation analyses between these two different sets of metrics. Surprisingly, we found no significant correlation between the textual similarity metrics and test adequacy metrics. For instance, gpt-3.5 on the jackrabbit-oak project had the highest performance on all seven textual similarity metrics among the studied NOGs. However, it had the lowest test adequacy metrics compared to all the studied NOGs. We further conducted a qualitative analysis to explore the reasons behind our observations. We found that oracles with high textual similarity metrics but low test adequacy metrics tend to have complex or multiple chained method invocations within the oracle's parameters, making them hard for the model to generate completely, affecting the test adequacy metrics. On the other hand, oracles with low textual similarity metrics but high test adequacy metrics tend to have to call different assertion types or a different method that functions similarly to the ones in the ground truth. Overall, this work complements prior studies on test oracle generation with an extensive performance evaluation on textual similarity and test adequacy metrics and provides guidelines for better assessment of deep learning applications in software test generation in the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估神经测试 Oracle 生成的评价指标
最近,深度学习模型在测试甲骨文生成方面取得了可喜的成果。神经甲骨文生成(NOG)模型通常使用静态(自动)指标进行评估,这些指标主要基于输出的文本相似性,如 BLEU、ROUGE-L、METEOR 和 Accuracy。然而,这些文本相似度指标可能无法反映测试套件中生成的甲骨文的测试效果,而测试效果通常是通过动态(基于执行)测试充分性指标(如代码覆盖率和突变分数)来衡量的。在这项工作中,我们重新审视了现有的甲骨文生成研究和 gpt-3.5,以实证研究它们在文本相似性和测试充分性指标方面的性能现状。具体来说,我们在七个文本相似性指标和两个测试充分性指标上训练并运行了四个最先进的测试甲骨文生成模型,以进行分析。我们对这两组不同的指标进行了两种不同的相关性分析。令人惊讶的是,我们发现文本相似度指标和测试充分性指标之间没有明显的相关性。例如,在所研究的 NOG 中,jackrabbit-oak 项目上的 gpt-3.5 在所有七个文本相似度指标上的表现都是最高的。但是,与所有研究的 NOG 相比,它的测试充分性指标最低。我们进一步进行了定性分析,以探索观察结果背后的原因。我们发现,文本相似度指标高但测试充分性指标低的神谕往往在神谕参数中具有复杂或多重链式方法调用,这使得模型难以完全生成,从而影响了测试充分性指标。另一方面,文本相似度指标较低但测试充分性指标较高的神谕往往需要调用不同的断言类型,或调用与基本事实中的断言类型功能类似的不同方法。总之,这项工作通过对文本相似性和测试充分性指标进行广泛的性能评估,对之前关于测试神谕生成的研究进行了补充,并为今后更好地评估深度学习在软件测试生成中的应用提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.80%
发文量
724
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering seeks contributions comprising well-defined theoretical results and empirical studies with potential impacts on software construction, analysis, or management. The scope of this Transactions extends from fundamental mechanisms to the development of principles and their application in specific environments. Specific topic areas include: a) Development and maintenance methods and models: Techniques and principles for specifying, designing, and implementing software systems, encompassing notations and process models. b) Assessment methods: Software tests, validation, reliability models, test and diagnosis procedures, software redundancy, design for error control, and measurements and evaluation of process and product aspects. c) Software project management: Productivity factors, cost models, schedule and organizational issues, and standards. d) Tools and environments: Specific tools, integrated tool environments, associated architectures, databases, and parallel and distributed processing issues. e) System issues: Hardware-software trade-offs. f) State-of-the-art surveys: Syntheses and comprehensive reviews of the historical development within specific areas of interest.
期刊最新文献
Line-Level Defect Prediction by Capturing Code Contexts with Graph Convolutional Networks Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD? Scoping Software Engineering for AI: The TSE Perspective A context-aware clustering approach for assisting operators in classifying security alerts StagedVulBERT: Multi-Granular Vulnerability Detection with a Novel Pre-trained Code Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1