Paper detail

Towards Human-Like Automated Test Generation: Perspectives from Cognition and Problem Solving

Automated testing tools typically create test cases that are different from what human testers create. This often makes the tools less effective, the created tests harder to understand, and thus results in tools providing less support to human testers. Here, we propose a framework based on cognitive science and, in particular, an analysis of approaches to problem-solving, for identifying cognitive processes of testers. The framework helps map test design steps and criteria used in human test activities and thus to better understand how effective human testers perform their tasks. Ultimately, our goal is to be able to mimic how humans create test cases and thus to design more human-like automated test generation systems. We posit that such systems can better augment and support testers in a way that is meaningful to them.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.