No abstract

No abstract

The empirical assessment of test techniques plays an important role in software testing research. One common practice is to instrument faults, either manually or by using mutation operators. The latter allows the systematic, repeatable seeding of large numbers of faults; however, we do not know whether empirical results obtained this way lead to valid, representative conclusions. This paper investigates this important question based on a number of programs with comprehensive pools of test cases and known faults. It is concluded that, based on the data available thus far, the use of mutation operators is yielding trustworthy results (generated mutants are similar to real faults). Mutants appear however to be different from hand-seeded faults that seem to be harder to detect than real faults.

No abstract

Mutants are automatically-generated, possibly faulty variants of programs. The mutation adequacy ratio of a test suite is the ratio of non-equivalent mutants it is able to identify to the total number of non-equivalent mutants. This ratio can be used as a measure of test effectiveness. However, it can be expensive to calculate, due to the large number of different mutation operators that have been proposed for generating the mutants.In this paper, we address the problem of finding a small set of mutation operators which is still sufficient for measuring test effectiveness. We do this by defining a statistical analysis procedure that allows us to identify such a set, together with an associated linear model that predicts mutation adequacy with high accuracy. We confirm the validity of our procedure through cross-validation and the application of other, alternative statistical analyses.