Showing 1–4 of 4 results for author: Chekam, T T

Cerebro: Static Subsuming Mutant Selection

Authors: Aayush Garg, Milos Ojdanic, Renzo Degiovanni, Thierry Titcheu Chekam, Mike Papadakis, Yves Le Traon

Abstract: Mutation testing research has indicated that a major part of its application cost is due to the large number of low utility mutants that it introduces. Although previous research has identified this issue, no previous study has proposed any effective solution to the problem. Thus, it remains unclear how to mutate and test a given piece of code in a best effort way, i.e., achieving a good trade-off… ▽ More Mutation testing research has indicated that a major part of its application cost is due to the large number of low utility mutants that it introduces. Although previous research has identified this issue, no previous study has proposed any effective solution to the problem. Thus, it remains unclear how to mutate and test a given piece of code in a best effort way, i.e., achieving a good trade-off between invested effort and test effectiveness. To achieve this, we propose Cerebro, a machine learning approach that statically selects subsuming mutants, i.e., the set of mutants that resides on the top of the subsumption hierarchy, based on the mutants' surrounding code context. We evaluate Cerebro using 48 and 10 programs written in C and Java, respectively, and demonstrate that it preserves the mutation testing benefits while limiting application cost, i.e., reduces all cost application factors such as equivalent mutants, mutant executions, and the mutants requiring analysis. We demonstrate that Cerebro has strong inter-project prediction ability, which is significantly higher than two baseline methods, i.e., supervised learning on features proposed by state-of-the-art, and random mutant selection. More importantly, our results show that Cerebro's selected mutants lead to strong tests that are respectively capable of killing 2 times higher than the number of subsuming mutants killed by the baselines when selecting the same number of mutants. At the same time, Cerebro reduces the cost-related factors, as it selects, on average, 68% fewer equivalent mutants, while requiring 90% fewer test executions than the baselines. △ Less

Submitted 1 March, 2022; v1 submitted 28 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Killing Stubborn Mutants with Symbolic Execution

Authors: Thierry Titcheu Chekam, Mike Papadakis, Maxime Cordy, Yves Le Traon

Abstract: We introduce SeMu, a Dynamic Symbolic Execution technique that generates test inputs capable of killing stubborn mutants (killable mutants that remain undetected after a reasonable amount of testing). SeMu aims at mutant propagation (triggering erroneous states to the program output) by incrementally searching for divergent program behaviours between the original and the mutant versions. We model… ▽ More We introduce SeMu, a Dynamic Symbolic Execution technique that generates test inputs capable of killing stubborn mutants (killable mutants that remain undetected after a reasonable amount of testing). SeMu aims at mutant propagation (triggering erroneous states to the program output) by incrementally searching for divergent program behaviours between the original and the mutant versions. We model the mutant killing problem as a symbolic execution search within a specific area in the programs' symbolic tree. In this framework, the search area is defined and controlled by parameters that allow scalable and cost-effective mutant killing. We integrate SeMu in KLEE and experimented with Coreutils (a benchmark frequently used in symbolic execution studies). Our results show that our modelling plays an important role in mutant killing. Perhaps more importantly, our results also show that, within a two-hour time limit, SeMu kills 37% of the stubborn mutants, where KLEE kills none and where the mutant infection strategy (strategy suggested by previous research) kills 17%. △ Less

Submitted 9 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Selecting Fault Revealing Mutants

Authors: Thierry Titcheu Chekam, Mike Papadakis, Tegawendé Bissyandé, Yves Le Traon, Koushik Sen

Abstract: Mutant selection refers to the problem of choosing, among a large number of mutants, the (few) ones that should be used by the testers. In view of this, we investigate the problem of selecting the fault revealing mutants, i.e., the mutants that are most likely to be killable and lead to test cases that uncover unknown program faults. We formulate two variants of this problem: the fault revealing m… ▽ More Mutant selection refers to the problem of choosing, among a large number of mutants, the (few) ones that should be used by the testers. In view of this, we investigate the problem of selecting the fault revealing mutants, i.e., the mutants that are most likely to be killable and lead to test cases that uncover unknown program faults. We formulate two variants of this problem: the fault revealing mutant selection and the fault revealing mutant prioritization. We argue and show that these problems can be tackled through a set of 'static' program features and propose a machine learning approach, named FaRM, that learns to select and rank killable and fault revealing mutants. Experimental results involving 1,692 real faults show the practical benefits of our approach in both examined problems. Our results show that FaRM achieves a good trade-off between application cost and effectiveness (measured in terms of faults revealed). We also show that FaRM outperforms all the existing mutant selection methods, i.e., the random mutant sampling, the selective mutation and defect prediction (mutating the code areas pointed by defect prediction). In particular, our results show that with respect to mutant selection, our approach reveals 23% to 34% more faults than any of the baseline methods, while, with respect to mutant prioritization, it achieves higher average percentage of revealed faults with a median difference between 4% and 9% (from the random mutant orderings). △ Less

Submitted 4 November, 2018; v1 submitted 21 March, 2018; originally announced March 2018.

Assessing and Comparing Mutation-based Fault Localization Techniques

Authors: Thierry Titcheu Chekam, Mike Papadakis, Yves Le Traon

Abstract: Recent research demonstrated that mutation-based fault localization techniques are relatively accurate and practical. However, these methods have never been compared and have only been assessed with simple hand-seeded faults. Therefore, their actual practicality is questionable when it comes to real-wold faults. To deal with this limitation we asses and compare the two main mutation-based fault lo… ▽ More Recent research demonstrated that mutation-based fault localization techniques are relatively accurate and practical. However, these methods have never been compared and have only been assessed with simple hand-seeded faults. Therefore, their actual practicality is questionable when it comes to real-wold faults. To deal with this limitation we asses and compare the two main mutation-based fault localization methods, named Metallaxis and MUSE, on a set of real-world programs and faults. Our results based on three typical evaluation metrics indicate that mutation-based fault localization methods are relatively accurate and provide relevant information to developers. Overall, our result indicate that Metallaxis and MUSE require 18% and 37% of the program statements to find the sought faults. Additionally, both methods locate 50% and 80% of the studied faults when developers inspect 10 and 25 statements. △ Less

Submitted 19 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.