### Table 2: BCELL test cases

"... In PAGE 5: ...igure 2 shows the grid for the 3D BCELL test case. HEXA p-elements are used. The four corners of the bottom are fixed and at the top corners, forces are applied in the same direction. Table2 shows the basic properties of the test case. The small difference between the number of degrees of freedom for the cases with fixed and adaptive p-level 2 is due to bubble functions, which are used in addition to the linear base functions for those elements, which remain linear.... ..."

### Table 6: Test Case Prioritization Techniques. Label Mnemonic Description

"... In PAGE 17: ... The plots on the left present results for test-class level test cases and the plots on the right present results for test-method level test cases. See Table6 for a legend of the techniques. 5.... In PAGE 17: ... Each plot contains a box for each of the seven prioritization techniques, showing the distribution of APFD scores for that technique across all of the mutant groups used for all of versions of that object program. See Table6 for a legend of the techniques. Examining the boxplots for each object program, we observe that the results vary substantially across programs.... In PAGE 22: ...) Each plot contains a box for each of the seven prioritization techniques, showing the distribution of APFD scores for that technique across each of the versions of the object program. See Table6 for a legend of the techniques. Examining the boxplots for each object program, we observe that results on the two programs display several similar trends: all prioritization heuristics outperform untreated test suites, but some heuristics are no better than randomly ordered test suites.... In PAGE 23: ... The upper row presents results for mutation faults and the lower row presents results for hand-seeded faults. See Table6 for a legend of the techniques. For example, APFD values for randomly ordered suites (T2) show different variance across the programs, and the APFD values from block-total (T4) for galileo appear to form a normal distribution, while they are more skewed for nanoxml.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 3. Parameter specification for test cases

2001

"... In PAGE 2: ... The likeli- hood is greater when the CQ transform is recomputed with Q new (a higher Q). In Table3... In PAGE 3: ...e there is no need to use a higher Q in this case). For case 4 in Table3 the likelihood of finding peaks corresponding to the ad- ditional F0 apos;s between harmonics of the resolvable fundamentals is very low. Instead, the procedure for case 4 involves searching the CQ spectrum to see if in addition to the spectral peak cor- responding to 3 2 10=12 f 0 , there is a nearby peak corresponding to 2 28=12 f 0 .... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Test cases.

"... In PAGE 10: ... 3. The test cases were selected for comparison with results from references [20] and [21] and are presented in Table1 . The symbol num represents the numerical angle of attack, exp the corresponding experimental angle of attack, M1 the freestream Mach number, Re the chord based Reynolds number, x=c the location of the numerically tripped transition to turbulence (activation of numerical turbulence modelling), and ! represents the relaxation parameter in the original version of the code.... In PAGE 12: ...2 RAE-2822 Airfoil The RAE-2822 airfoil is a supercritical airfoil with a moderate amount of aft camber which can pose di culties in achieving VII convergence. In addition, the test cases (summarized in Table1 ) simulate critical transonic ow conditions. Therefore, these cases constitute a challenging validation criterion for the enhanced code.... In PAGE 12: ... Therefore, these cases constitute a challenging validation criterion for the enhanced code. For Case 2 of Table1 convergence of the aerodynamic coe cients (with a tolerance of 0.001 in absolute di erence) has been achieved after 5 PDS iterations using 18 coe cients and after 6 PDS iterations using 10 transpiration coe cients (once again neglecting wake e ects), while the original code required 41 global iterations.... ..."

### Table 1: Test cases.

"... In PAGE 11: ... 3. The test cases were selected for comparison with results from references [20] and [21] and are presented in Table1 . The symbol num represents the numerical angle of attack, exp the corresponding experimental angle of attack, M1 the freestream Mach number, Re the chord based Reynolds number, x=c the location of the numerically tripped transition to turbulence (activation of numerical turbulence modelling), and ! represents the relaxation parameter in the original version of the code.... In PAGE 13: ...2 RAE-2822 Airfoil The RAE-2822 airfoil is a supercritical airfoil with a moderate amount of aft camber which can pose di culties in achieving VII convergence. In addition, the test cases (summarized in Table1 ) simulate critical transonic ow conditions. Therefore, these cases constitute a challenging validation criterion for the enhanced code.... In PAGE 13: ... Therefore, these cases constitute a challenging validation criterion for the enhanced code. For Case 2 of Table1 convergence of the aerodynamic coe cients (with a tolerance of 0.001 in absolute di erence) has been achieved after 5 PDS iterations using 18 coe cients and after 6 PDS iterations using 10 transpiration coe cients (once again neglecting wake e ects), while the original code required 41 global iterations.... ..."

### Table 2. Test cases

1993

"... In PAGE 31: ... It is predicted that the difference between the two methods is larger when the distance d is smaller and when the rectangular plate (plate A) is used. Therefore, plate A, with the smallest distance in Table2 , d=0.02, is selected for this experiment.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2. Test case prioritization techniques.

"... In PAGE 7: ... Each plot contains a box showing the distribution of APFD scores for each of the nine techniques, across each of the versions of the object program. See Table2 for a legend of the techniques. The data sets depicted in Figure 4 served as the basis for our formal analyses of results.... ..."

### Table 2. Test case prioritization techniques.

"... In PAGE 7: ... Each plot contains a box showing the distribution of APFD scores for each of the nine techniques, across each of the versions of the object program. See Table2 for a legend of the tech- niques. The data sets depicted in Figure 4 served as the basis for our formal analyses of results.... ..."

### Table 1: An example of a test suite where the addi- tional greedy algorithm produces suboptimal selec- tion of test cases

"... In PAGE 4: ...a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6a7 a8 a0 a0 a9a1 a0 a9a2 a0 a9a3 a0 a9a4 a10 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a14 a18 a19 a20 a21 a22a23 a24 a25a20 a23 a26 a22a27a21 a20 a28 a29 a29 a27a22a27a23 a26 a19 a30 a31 a20 a21 a21 a29 a32 Figure 1: Comparison between the Pareto frontier and the results of the additional greedy algorithm from the test data shown in Table 1 tions that are Pareto efficient with respect to T2. Such an example is shown in Table1 . The first choice of the addi- tional greedy algorithm will be T1, which has the additional coverage per unit time value of 0.... In PAGE 4: ... Since it only changes the order of a given test suite, it is not capable of producing an efficient test case schedul- ing when the available time is shorter than the total time required by the test suite. Figure 1 shows the result that the additional greedy algo- rithm produces with the test data shown in Table1 , along with the real Pareto frontier of the test data. If the bud- get allows 9 units of time for the testing, the result of the additional greedy algorithm can be applied with a final cov- erage of 100%.... ..."