Semantic mutation testing

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version can be obtained from the link below - Copyright @ 2011 ElsevierMutation testing is a powerful and flexible test technique. Traditional mutation testing makes a small change to the syntax of a description (usually a program) in order to create a mutant. A test suite is considered to be good if it distinguishes between the original description and all of the (functionally non-equivalent) mutants. These mutants can be seen as representing potential small slips and thus mutation testing aims to produce a test suite that is good at finding such slips. It has also been argued that a test suite that finds such small changes is likely to find larger changes. This paper describes a new approach to mutation testing, called semantic mutation testing. Rather than mutate the description, semantic mutation testing mutates the semantics of the language in which the description is written. The mutations of the semantics of the language represent possible misunderstandings of the description language and thus capture a different class of faults. Since the likely misunderstandings are highly context dependent, this context should be used to determine which semantic mutants should be produced. The approach is illustrated through examples with statecharts and C code. The paper also describes a semantic mutation testing tool for C and the results of experiments that investigated the nature of some semantic mutation operators for C

Potential Errors and Test Assessment in Software Product Line Engineering

Software product lines (SPL) are a method for the development of variant-rich software systems. Compared to non-variable systems, testing SPLs is extensive due to an increasingly amount of possible products. Different approaches exist for testing SPLs, but there is less research for assessing the quality of these tests by means of error detection capability. Such test assessment is based on error injection into correct version of the system under test. However to our knowledge, potential errors in SPL engineering have never been systematically identified before. This article presents an overview over existing paradigms for specifying software product lines and the errors that can occur during the respective specification processes. For assessment of test quality, we leverage mutation testing techniques to SPL engineering and implement the identified errors as mutation operators. This allows us to run existing tests against defective products for the purpose of test assessment. From the results, we draw conclusions about the error-proneness of the surveyed SPL design paradigms and how quality of SPL tests can be improved.Comment: In Proceedings MBT 2015, arXiv:1504.0192

Amortising the Cost of Mutation Based Fault Localisation using Statistical Inference

Mutation analysis can effectively capture the dependency between source code and test results. This has been exploited by Mutation Based Fault Localisation (MBFL) techniques. However, MBFL techniques suffer from the need to expend the high cost of mutation analysis after the observation of failures, which may present a challenge for its practical adoption. We introduce SIMFL (Statistical Inference for Mutation-based Fault Localisation), an MBFL technique that allows users to perform the mutation analysis in advance against an earlier version of the system. SIMFL uses mutants as artificial faults and aims to learn the failure patterns among test cases against different locations of mutations. Once a failure is observed, SIMFL requires either almost no or very small additional cost for analysis, depending on the used inference model. An empirical evaluation of SIMFL using 355 faults in Defects4J shows that SIMFL can successfully localise up to 103 faults at the top, and 152 faults within the top five, on par with state-of-the-art alternatives. The cost of mutation analysis can be further reduced by mutation sampling: SIMFL retains over 80% of its localisation accuracy at the top rank when using only 10% of generated mutants, compared to results obtained without sampling

Will My Tests Tell Me If I Break This Code?

Automated tests play an important role in software evolution because they can rapidly detect faults introduced during changes. In practice, code-coverage metrics are often used as criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of test suites with focus on regression faults. However, code coverage only expresses which portion of a system has been executed by tests, but not how effective the tests actually are in detecting regression faults. Our goal was to evaluate the validity of code coverage as a measure for test effectiveness. To do so, we conducted an empirical study in which we applied an extreme mutation testing approach to analyze the tests of open-source projects written in Java. We assessed the ratio of pseudo-tested methods (those tested in a way such that faults would not be detected) to all covered methods and judged their impact on the software project. The results show that the ratio of pseudo-tested methods is acceptable for unit tests but not for system tests (that execute large portions of the whole system). Therefore, we conclude that the coverage metric is only a valid effectiveness indicator for unit tests.Comment: 7 pages, 3 figure

Test Case Purification for Improving Fault Localization

Finding and fixing bugs are time-consuming activities in software development. Spectrum-based fault localization aims to identify the faulty position in source code based on the execution trace of test cases. Failing test cases and their assertions form test oracles for the failing behavior of the system under analysis. In this paper, we propose a novel concept of spectrum driven test case purification for improving fault localization. The goal of test case purification is to separate existing test cases into small fractions (called purified test cases) and to enhance the test oracles to further localize faults. Combining with an original fault localization technique (e.g., Tarantula), test case purification results in better ranking the program statements. Our experiments on 1800 faults in six open-source Java programs show that test case purification can effectively improve existing fault localization techniques

Adversarial Sample Detection for Deep Neural Network through Model Mutation Testing

Deep neural networks (DNN) have been shown to be useful in a wide range of applications. However, they are also known to be vulnerable to adversarial samples. By transforming a normal sample with some carefully crafted human imperceptible perturbations, even highly accurate DNN make wrong decisions. Multiple defense mechanisms have been proposed which aim to hinder the generation of such adversarial samples. However, a recent work show that most of them are ineffective. In this work, we propose an alternative approach to detect adversarial samples at runtime. Our main observation is that adversarial samples are much more sensitive than normal samples if we impose random mutations on the DNN. We thus first propose a measure of `sensitivity' and show empirically that normal samples and adversarial samples have distinguishable sensitivity. We then integrate statistical hypothesis testing and model mutation testing to check whether an input sample is likely to be normal or adversarial at runtime by measuring its sensitivity. We evaluated our approach on the MNIST and CIFAR10 datasets. The results show that our approach detects adversarial samples generated by state-of-the-art attacking methods efficiently and accurately.Comment: Accepted by ICSE 201

Detecting Trivial Mutant Equivalences via Compiler Optimisations

Mutation testing realises the idea of fault-based testing, i.e., using artificial defects to guide the testing process. It is used to evaluate the adequacy of test suites and to guide test case generation. It is a potentially powerful form of testing, but it is well-known that its effectiveness is inhibited by the presence of equivalent mutants. We recently studied Trivial Compiler Equivalence (TCE) as a simple, fast and readily applicable technique for identifying equivalent mutants for C programs. In the present work, we augment our findings with further results for the Java programming language. TCE can remove a large portion of all mutants because they are determined to be either equivalent or duplicates of other mutants. In particular, TCE equivalent mutants account for 7.4% and 5.7% of all C and Java mutants, while duplicated mutants account for a further 21% of all C mutants and 5.4% Java mutants, on average. With respect to a benchmark ground truth suite (of known equivalent mutants), approximately 30% (for C) and 54% (for Java) are TCE equivalent. It is unsurprising that results differ between languages, since mutation characteristics are language-dependent. In the case of Java, our new results suggest that TCE may be particularly effective, finding almost half of all equivalent mutants