Minimum Testing Strategy

• Minimum Testing Strategy is a rigorously defined approach that minimizes test suite size while guaranteeing required coverage and error control.
• It employs optimization, statistical analysis, and algorithmic frameworks to reduce resource use in software, experimental, and epidemiological testing.
• Key implementations include clustering-based test input reduction, Edgeworth-corrected sample size formulas, and CSP-encoded methods for minimal interaction fault detection.

A minimum testing strategy is a rigorously defined approach for reducing the cost, redundancy, or error in testing processes—be they in software, systems engineering, experimental science, or epidemiology—while guaranteeing that required coverage, detection, or decision-theoretic guarantees are still achieved. Such a strategy typically combines parameter minimization (e.g., smallest test suite, sample size, or experiment count) with explicit risk or error controls, and is often crafted using optimization, statistical, or algorithmic frameworks. The following sections synthesize recent approaches and frameworks for minimum testing strategies across diverse technical domains.

1. Optimization and Automation in Software Test Suite Minimization

A canonical instantiation of the minimum testing strategy is the minimization of software test input sets subject to structural and performance coverage constraints. This problem is addressed by clustering-based profiling frameworks which systematically reduce massive input spaces while retaining coverage of behavioral variation relevant to performance regression (Javed et al., 2022).

• Feature Profiling and Clustering: Each candidate test input $x$ is mapped to a feature vector encoding syntactic and performance metrics (input size, executed statements, loop iterations, conditionals, memory, and execution time). Standard clustering algorithms (K-means, GMM, Aglo, DBSCAN) are applied with parameter selection (e.g., elbow heuristic for $k$ or DBSCAN $\varepsilon$). The result is a partitioning into clusters of structurally or behaviorally similar inputs.
• Representative Selection: $r$ representatives per cluster are selected (medoid or random sampling), forming a drastic test set reduction; for example, a reduction from $\sim$40,000 to $\sim$15 test cases (99.96% reduction) at CERN.
• Proactive Triggering Rules: Instead of always running the full minimized suite at each code update, the framework first runs a sample (cluster representatives), checks for anomalous slowdowns (via threshold and slowdown-gradient tests), and only triggers the full suite upon evidence of significant degradation.
• Performance Impact: Average test-execution overhead drops by over an order of magnitude, with full suite invocations decreasing from 100% to 20% of commits, while retaining high sensitivity to real regressions.

This structural minimization framework can be adapted for domain-specific test metrics and is essential for sustainable testing in environments with rapidly growing or evolving input spaces (Javed et al., 2022).

2. Minimum-Cost and Minimum-Error Statistical Testing

Minimum testing strategies in statistical A/B testing are defined in terms of the minimal sample size necessary to guarantee control of Type I error under non-Gaussianity, unequal allocation, skewness, and heavy tails. Explicit formulas for this minimum $N$ are derived from Edgeworth expansions for the $t$-statistic:

• First-Order (Skewness) and Second-Order (Kurtosis) Thresholds: Two explicit lower bounds for $N$ are supplied:

$N_{\min}^{(1)} = (a_1/\epsilon)^2$

and

$$N_{\min}^{(2)} = \left(\frac{|a_1| + \sqrt{a_1^2 - 4|a_2|\epsilon \cdot \operatorname{sign}(a_1^2-4|a_2|\epsilon)}}{2\epsilon}\right)^2$$

where $a_1$ and $a_2$ capture the effects of skewness and kurtosis, and $\epsilon$ is the tolerable per-tail error.

• Dependence on Allocation and Moments: Required $N$ grows quadratically in skewness and rapidly in kurtosis; severe sample imbalance and non-normality can push required sample sizes into the hundreds of millions for reliable A/B results.
• Edgeworth Correction: When operating below the calculable minimum $N$, an Edgeworth-corrected $p$-value yields valid Type I error rates, and an explicit implementation recipe is given for automated platforms.
• Operational Protocol: Recommended protocols involve empirical estimation of population moments, calculation of $N_{\min}$ thresholds, periodic re-estimation owing to potential metric drift, and validation via holdout A/A tests (Gong et al., 26 Oct 2025).

This methodology establishes a rigorous, data-driven lower bound for statistical test size as a function of data distributional properties, superseding naive normal-based power calculations.

3. Combinatorial Minimum Test Construction for Interaction Faults

In combinatorial interaction testing, the minimum testing strategy is cast as finding the smallest possible array (or suite) that guarantees fault detection or localization among parameter interactions:

• $(\overline{1}, t)$-Locating Arrays: A test suite (array) covering all $t$-way interactions with the property that, for any singleton interaction, the pattern of covered test outcomes uniquely identifies the fault trigger.
• Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) Encoding: The construction of minimum-size such arrays is encoded as a CSP instance, enforcing both $t$-way coverage and pairwise distinguishability (locating) constraints across all interaction pairs.
• Solver-Driven Guarantees: Modern CSP/SAT solvers are used to provably identify the minimal $N$, leveraging alternative matrix encodings, channeling constraints, and symmetry breaking for scalability. For parameter sizes up to $k=23$, binary arrays of length as low as $N=19$ have been explicitly constructed and proved minimal (Konishi et al., 2019).
• Comparison to Direct Constructions: Only CSP/SAT frameworks can certify true minimality (via UNSAT at $N-1$); heuristic/greedy methods offer only upper bounds with no proof of minimality.

This approach provides a sharp, algorithmically backed path toward minimum-interaction test suites, vital for large-scale configurable system fault localization.

4. Minimum Testing in Adaptive or Extensional Test Strategy Synthesis

The minimum testing strategy for arbitrary black-box systems (e.g., software, protocol implementations) can be formalized as constructing the shallowest adaptive test tree (or the shortest sequential strategy) such that the system’s conformance to specification is determined regardless of non-determinism:

• Extensional Testing Problem: Given an explicitly enumerated set $C$ of possible black-box definitions $$f: I \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(O)\setminus\{\emptyset\}$$, and a specification $E\subseteq C$, the strategy is to find the minimum-depth test tree such that all behaviors are either proved correct or faulty under all outputs from $C$.
• Complexity Results: The deterministic variant (singleton or multiple specification/fault models) is NP-complete and Log-APX-hard to approximate; the non-deterministic variant is PSPACE-complete, precluding efficient exact solutions for even modest size cases (Rodriguez et al., 17 Jan 2026).
• Algorithmic Implications: Greedy set cover and genetic search yield logarithmic approximations in deterministic settings; nondeterministic cases require depth-bounded minimax search or on-the-fly tree construction with heavy parallelization.

A minimum adaptive test strategy in this context formalizes the theoretical lower bound on "test effort" for full behavioral discrimination, with strong computational complexity constraints.

5. Minimum Testing Strategies in Epidemiological and Population Screening

Population-scale scenarios, particularly in pandemic control, motivate minimum-testing protocols based on constrained resource allocation:

• Epidemic Control Policies: In SIDUR models, the minimum constant daily testing rate necessary to suppress infection growth (BEST policy) is directly computed as

$u_{\min} = x_T(t^*)[\beta S(t^*)/N - \gamma]_+$

where $x_T$ is the testable pool. For finite test stockpiles, the optimal pacing (COST policy) is determined by equalizing infection peaks before and after test exhaustion, solvable via a nonlinear system (Niazi et al., 2020).

• Imperfect Testing and Thresholds: Modeling false negatives yields explicit inequalities relating minimal test efficacy $\epsilon$ and rate $\tau$ to force $R_0<1$. Empirical analysis of early COVID-19 in India confirms substantial reductions in cases and delayed peaks upon exceeding those thresholds by 20–30% (Bugalia et al., 2022).
• Minimum-Cost Pooled Testing: Hypercube-based group testing minimizes the expected number of required RT-PCR tests per person to $O(p\log(1/p))$, far below the $O(\sqrt{p})$ scaling of classical Dorfman algorithms, especially effective at low disease prevalence. Group sizes and slicing parameters are optimized according to prevalence and laboratory constraints (Mutesa et al., 2020).

These approaches provide explicit control laws, threshold conditions, and combinatorial pooling protocols achieving minimal test use for detection, while keeping transmission below critical thresholds or resource utilization at optimum.

6. Minimum Test Set Construction in Model-Based and Search-Based Software Testing

Model-based approaches leverage formal models (finite-state machines, combinatorial parameter spaces) to synthesize effort-optimal tests:

• Effort-Optimal FSM Testing: The FSMT approach defines the minimum test set as the collection of valid walks that jointly cover all transitions with minimized total step/effort count, incorporating constraints on possible start/end states and test-length ranges. Greedy set-cover approximations using constrained shortest-path search achieve $\sim3\times$ effort reductions over naive enumeration for IoT-scale automata (Rechtberger et al., 2020).
• Metaheuristic ("t-way") Strategies: Hybrid Artificial Bee Colony with Hamming distance tie-breaking (HABCSm) minimizes covering arrays and variable-strength covering arrays, leveraging greedy uncovered-interaction fitness, diversity promotion, and population-based search, routinely achieving best-known suite sizes across large benchmarks (Alazzawi et al., 2021).

These strategies formalize and algorithmically solve the optimization of minimum-coverage or minimum-effort objectives in both sequential and combinatorially complex model spaces.

7. Test Selection and Change-Based Strategies Under Coverage and Flakiness Constraints

For large-scale software CI/CD environments, the minimum testing strategy is targeted at subset-selection:

• Predictive Test Selection: The problem is to choose, for each code change $c$, the minimal subset $S(c)$ of tests from $T$ that ensures the probability of missing a real fault is below $\epsilon$. This is solved via machine-learned classifiers (gradient-boosted trees) trained on historical de-flaked test outcome data, with selection thresholding ($\theta$) and count limits ($k$) to prune and bound $|S(c)|$. Accuracy-vs-cost is explicitly measured via detection rate and cost reduction metrics (Machalica et al., 2018).
• Empirical Guarantees: Facebook production data establish that this approach can reduce test executions by $3\times$ with loss rates for true faulty changes below 0.1%, provided careful model training (with de-flaking) and weekly recalibration are maintained.

This ML-augmented strategy exemplifies a minimum testing approach at the intersection of statistical decision theory and large-scale automation.

---

In summary, minimum testing strategies are contextually defined, optimization-driven approaches for minimizing test resource usage—be it suite size, sample count, or test frequency—under formal constraints ensuring functional, statistical, or operational guarantees. They are realized via clustering, constraint satisfaction, search-based construction, optimal control, and machine learning frameworks across software, systems engineering, and population-level inference (Javed et al., 2022, Gong et al., 26 Oct 2025, Konishi et al., 2019, Rodriguez et al., 17 Jan 2026, Niazi et al., 2020, Bugalia et al., 2022, Mutesa et al., 2020, Rechtberger et al., 2020, Alazzawi et al., 2021, Machalica et al., 2018).