2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.01.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A weighted fuzzy classification approach to identify and manipulate coincidental correct test cases for fault localization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, we use M T P as the mutation reduction performance metric and EXAM score as the fault localization accuracy metric. The former metric is popularly used in evaluating the cost of MBFL [12], [21], [32], and the latter one is also a commonly used fault localization metric in previous studies [45], [46]. Therefore, the performance metrics used in our study can reflect the real situation in evaluating MFL methods.…”
Section: Threats To Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In our study, we use M T P as the mutation reduction performance metric and EXAM score as the fault localization accuracy metric. The former metric is popularly used in evaluating the cost of MBFL [12], [21], [32], and the latter one is also a commonly used fault localization metric in previous studies [45], [46]. Therefore, the performance metrics used in our study can reflect the real situation in evaluating MFL methods.…”
Section: Threats To Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) EXAM Score Metric EXAM score [44] (EXAM ) is the percentage of program elements that have to be inspected until finding the exact faulty element. It is a commonly used metric for fault localization techniques, and a lower EXAM indicates a better fault localization technique [45], [46]. The EXAM measures the relative position of the faulty element in the ranking list, and the formula of EXAM can be defined as follows.…”
Section: ) Mutant-test-pair Metricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We adopt four performance metrics (i.e., EXAM, Top-N, MAP and MTP) to evaluate the fault localization effectiveness of our proposed approach. These metrics are selected based on their extensive use in prior fault localization research [56,57].…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To alleviate this, we use EXAM, Top-N and MAP to evaluate the effectiveness of fault localization and MTP to evaluate the efficiency. EXAM has been widely used in evaluating the effectiveness of fault localization in previous studies [56,57]. The metric of Top-N measures the absolute ranks of faulty program statements [60].…”
Section: Construct Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, it is necessary to generate test cases with "better" quality to improve the chance of faulty statements being ranked as highly suspicious. To this end, some researchers have improved the efficiency of SBFL from the perspective of identifying coincidental correctness (CC) test cases [9][10][11][12][13].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%