Back to all available

Study on an automated test case selection method based on a time-weighted utility scoring model

algorithms-and-analysis-of-algorithms
data-science
optimization-theory-and-computation
scientific-computing-and-simulation
software-engineering

Abstract

To address the inefficiency, excessive resource consumption, and reliance on subjective experience in traditional test case selection for industrial Human-Machine Interface (HMI) systems, this paper proposes a Time-Weighted Utility Scoring Model (TWUSM) for automated test case prioritization and selection. The model quantitatively evaluates test cases across three key dimensions—risk impact on system safety, functional importance, and testing cost—using a weighted utility score that dynamically incorporates historical execution feedback. Based on the computation, test cases are categorized into priority tiers, high-score cases are selected deterministically as mandatory tests, while lower-score cases are subject to probabilistic sampling with selection probability proportional to their scores. Experimental results on an industrial HMI system demonstrate that TWUSM significantly reduces testing time, improves fault detection efficiency, and enhances the objectivity and reproducibility of the regression testing process, offering a lightweight, practical, and sustainable solution for industrial-scale automated testing.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].