Search

From simulating galaxy formation to viral transmission in a pandemic, scientific models play a pivotal role in developing scientific theories and supporting government policy decisions that affect us all. Given these critical applications, a poor modelling assumption or bug could have far-reaching consequences. However, scientific models possess several properties that make them notoriously difficult to test, including a complex input space, long execution times, and non-determinism, rendering existing testing techniques impractical. In fields such as epidemiology, where researchers seek answers to challenging causal questions, a statistical methodology known as Causal inference has addressed similar problems, enabling the inference of causal conclusions from noisy, biased, and sparse data instead of costly experiments. This article introduces the causal testing framework: a framework that uses causal inference techniques to establish causal effects from existing data, enabling users to conduct software testing activities concerning the effect of a change, such as metamorphic testing, a posteriori. We present three case studies covering real-world scientific models, demonstrating how the causal testing framework can infer metamorphic test outcomes from reused, confounded test data to provide an efficient solution for testing scientific modelling software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State machines capture the sequential behavior of software systems. Their intuitive visual notation, along with a range of powerful verification and testing techniques render them an important part of the model-driven software engineering process. There are several situations that require the ability to identify and quantify the differences between two state machines (e.g. to evaluate the accuracy of state machine inference techniques is measured by the similarity of a reverse-engineered model to its reference model). State machines can be compared from two complementary perspectives: (1) In terms of their language - the externally observable sequences of events that are permitted or not, and (2) in terms of their structure - the actual states and transitions that govern the behavior. This article describes two techniques to compare models in terms of these two perspectives. It shows how the difference can be quantified and measured by adapting existing binary classification performance measures for the purpose. The approaches have been implemented by the authors, and the implementation is openly available. Feasibility is demonstrated via a case study to compare two real state machine inference approaches. Scalability and accuracy are assessed experimentally with respect to a large collection of randomly synthesized models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]