Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis 2013
DOI: 10.1145/2483760.2483769
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: A fundamental question in software testing research is how to compare test suites, often as a means for comparing testgeneration techniques. Researchers frequently compare test suites by measuring their coverage. A coverage criterion C provides a set of test requirements and measures how many requirements a given suite satisfies. A suite that satisfies 100% of the (feasible) requirements is C-adequate. Previous rigorous evaluations of coverage criteria mostly focused on such adequate test suites: given criteri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
84
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
2
84
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most closely related work to ours, which considers some of the same questions from a different perspective (that of researchers) is the recent work of Gligoric et al [16]. Their work uses the same statistical approach as our paper, measuring both τ β and R 2 to examine correlations to mutation kill for a set of criteria, and both studies consider realistically non-adequate suites.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The most closely related work to ours, which considers some of the same questions from a different perspective (that of researchers) is the recent work of Gligoric et al [16]. Their work uses the same statistical approach as our paper, measuring both τ β and R 2 to examine correlations to mutation kill for a set of criteria, and both studies consider realistically non-adequate suites.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In software testing research, the gold standard for suite evaluation is generally considered to be actual faults detected, but this is, again, in practice difficult to apply even in a research setting [16]. The second most informative measure of suite quality is usually held to be mutation testing [7,2], which measures the ability of a test suite to detect small changes to the source code.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The structural code coverage achieved is not always as high as we might hope [70], with the result that we may need to rely on non-adequate test suites and all that this entails [39] using currently available tools. However, the principles are relatively well understood and progress continues with regular newly published incremental advances on the state-of-the-art.…”
Section: A Brief History Of Sbstmentioning
confidence: 98%