Mutation operators for specifications

Black, Paul E.; Okun, Vadim; Yesha, Yaacov

doi:10.1109/ase.2000.873653

Cited by 83 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each state machine is compared by the model checker with the set of mutants produced previously. Black et al [66,67] refined the mutation operators defined by Ammann et al [44] and proposed new ones to be applied in the same approach that combines mutation testing and model checking.…”

Section: Model-based Mutation Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based mutation testing—Approach and case studies

Belli

Budnik

Hollmann³

et al. 2016

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper rigorously introduces the concept of model-based mutation testing (MBMT) and positions it in the landscape of mutation testing. Two elementary mutation operators, insertion and omission, are exemplarily applied to a hierarchy of graph-based models of increasing expressive power including directed graphs, event sequence graphs, finite-state machines and statecharts. Test cases generated based on the mutated models (mutants) are used to determine not only whether each mutant can be killed but also whether there are any faults in the corresponding system under consideration (SUC) developed based on the original model. Novelties of our approach are: (1) evaluation of the fault detection capability (in terms of revealing faults in the SUC) of test sets generated based on the mutated models, and (2) superseding of the great variety of existing mutation operators by iterations and combinations of the two proposed elementary operators. Three case studies were conducted on industrial and commercial real-life systems to demonstrate the feasibility of using the proposed MBMT approach in detecting faults in SUC, and to analyze its characteristic features. Our experimental data suggest that test sets generated based on the mutated models created by insertion operators are more effective in revealing faults in SUC than those generated by omission operators. Worth noting is that test sets following the MBMT approach were able to detect faults in the systems that were tested by manufacturers and independent testing organizations before they were released.

show abstract

Section: Model-based Mutation Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based mutation testing—Approach and case studies

Belli

Budnik

Hollmann³

et al. 2016

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mutation operators for specifications are analyzed by Black et al [79]. The examples given in [79] use the syntax of the model checker SMV [24], but can be applied to language that uses similar logical expressions.…”

Section: Mutation Operators For Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The examples given in [79] use the syntax of the model checker SMV [24], but can be applied to language that uses similar logical expressions. For example, the same mutation operators can also be applied to LTL or CTL properties.…”

Section: Mutation Operators For Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing with model checkers: a survey

Fraser

Wotawa

Ammann

2008

Software Testing Verif & Rel

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.About a decade after the initial proposal to use model checkers for the generation of test cases we take a look at the achievements in this field of research. Model checkers are formal verification tools, capable of providing counterexamples to violated properties. Normally, these counterexamples are meant to guide an analyst when searching for the root cause of a property violation. They are, however, also very useful as test cases. Many different approaches have been presented, many problems have been solved, yet many issues remain. This survey paper reviews the state of the art in testing with model checkers.

show abstract

“…It requires a very good expertise in the application domain. As the specification may be wrong, is probably a good idea to make this choice as independent of it as possible [2], even if some positive experiments have been performed on mutation of formal specifications [6].…”

Section: 1 Debugging or Testing Formal Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Methods and Testing: Hypotheses, and Correctness Approximations

Gaudel

2005

FM 2005: Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. It has been recognised for a while that formal specifications can bring much to software testing. Numerous methods have been proposed for the derivation of test cases from various kinds of formal specifications, their submission, and verdict. All these methods rely upon some hypotheses on the system under test that formalise the gap between the success of a test campaign and the correctness of the system under test.

show abstract

Mutation operators for specifications

Cited by 83 publications

References 13 publications

Model-based mutation testing—Approach and case studies

Model-based mutation testing—Approach and case studies

Testing with model checkers: a survey

Formal Methods and Testing: Hypotheses, and Correctness Approximations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About