Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Patrick, Matthew Timothy; Alexander, Rob; Oriol, Manuel Yves Antoine; Clark, John Andrew (2013)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Random testing is inexpensive, but it can also be inefficient. We apply mutation analysis to evolve efficient subdomains for the input parameters of eight benchmark programs that are frequently used in testing research. The evolved subdomains can be used for program analysis and regression testing. Test suites generated from the optimised subdomains outperform those generated from random subdomains with 10, 100 and 1000 test cases for uniform, Gaussian and exponential sampling. Our subdomains kill a large proportion of mutants for most of the programs we tested with just 10 test cases.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] G. J. Myers et al., “Test-case design,” in The Art of Software Testing, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011, ch. 4, pp. 41-84.
    • [2] J. H. Andrews et al., “Tool support for randomized unit testing” in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Random Testing, Portland, ME, 2006, pp. 36-45.
    • [3] P. G. Frankl et al., “All-uses versus mutation testing: an experimental comparison of effectiveness,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 235-253, June 1996.
    • [4] J. H. Andrews et al., “Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments?” in Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, St. Louis, MO, 2005, pp. 402-411.
    • [5] P. McMinn et al., “Reduding qualitative human oracle costs asssociated with automatically generated test data” in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Software Test Output Validation, Trento, IT, 2010, pp. 1-4.
    • [6] X.-S. Yang, Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, 2nd ed. Frome, England: Luniver, 2011, ch. 1, pp. 1-5.
    • [7] G. B. Dantzig, “Maximisation of a linear function of variables subject to linear inequalities,” in Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, T. C. Koopmans, Ed., New York, NY: Wiley, 1951, ch. 11, pp. 339-347.
    • [8] J. B. Kruskal, “On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 48-50, Feb. 1956.
    • [9] T. Ba¨ck, “Evolution strategies,” in Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice, Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
    • [10] B. Babb et al., “State-of-the-art lossy compression of martianimages via the CMA-ES evolution strategy,” Proc. Int. Soc. Optics Photonics, vol. 8305, pp. 22-26, Feb. 2012.
    • [11] V. Nissen and S. Gold, “Survivable network design with an evolution strategy,” in Success in Evolutionary Computation (Studies in Computational Intelligence), A. Yang et al. Eds., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008, pp. 263-283.
    • [12] J. Jung, “Using evolution strategy for cooperative focused crawling on semantic web,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 213-221 Apr. 2009.
    • [13] T. Weise, “Evolution strategy,” Global Optimization Algorithms - Theory and Application, 2nd ed. Kassel, Germany: Weise, 2009. [E-book] Available: http://www.itweise.de/projects/book.pdf [Accessed 10 Jan. 2013].
    • [14] S. Garc´ıa et al., “A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms behaviour: a case study on the CEC 2005 Special Session on Real Parameter Optimization,” J. Heuristics, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 617-644, Dec. 2009.
    • [15] M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, “Mersenne twister: a 623- dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator,” ACM Trans. Modeling Comput. Simulation, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3-30, Jan. 1998.
    • [16] H.-G. Beyer and H.-P. Schwefel, “Evolution strategies: a comprehensive introduction,” Natural Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-52, May 2002.
    • [17] P. Ammann and J. Offutt, “Introduction to software testing,” New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
    • [18] M. P. Usaola et al., “Reduction of test suites using mutation,” in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Fundamental Approaches Software Engineering, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012, pp. 425-438.
    • [19] M. Papadakis and N. Malevris, “Automatic mutation test case generation via dynamic symbolic execution,” in Proc. 21st IEEE Int. Symp. Software Reliability Engineering, San Jose, CA, 2010, pp. 121-130.
    • [20] G. E. P. Box and M. E. Muller, “A Note on the Generation of Random Normal Deviates,” Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 610-611, Jan. 1958.
    • [21] D. Hamlet, “When only random testing will do,” in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Random Testing, Portland, ME, 2006, pp. 1-9.
    • [22] T. Y. Chen et al., “Adaptive random testing,” in Proc. 9th ASIAN Computing Science Conf., Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2004, pp. 320-329.
    • [23] K. P. Chan et al., “Restricted random testing,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Software Quality, Helsinki, Finland, 2002, pp. 321-330.
    • [24] T. Y. Chen and R. G. Merkel, “Quasi-random testing,” IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 562-568, Sept. 2007.
    • [25] J. Mayer, “Lattice-based adaptive random testing,” in Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Automated Software Engineering, Long Beach, CA, 2005, pp. 333-336.
    • [26] T. Y., Chen and R. G. Merkel, “An upper bound on software testing effectiveness,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodology, vol. 17, no. 3, article no. 16, June 2008.
    • [27] A. Arcuri and L. Briand, “Adaptive random testing: an illusion of effectiveness?” in Proc. 20th IEEE Int. Symp. Software Testing Analysis, Toronto, Canada, 2011, pp. 265-275.
    • [28] P. The´venod-Fosse and H. Waeselynck, “STATEMATE applied to statistical software testing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Software Testing Analysis, Cambridge, MA, 1993, pp. 99-109.
    • [29] S. Poulding and J. A. Clark, “Efficient software verification: statistical testing using automated search,” Trans. Software Eng., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 763-777, Nov. 2010.
    • [30] L. Zhang et al., “Test generation via dynamic symbolic execution for mutation testing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Software Maintenance, Timis¸oara, Romania, 2010, pp. 533- 543.
    • [31] M. Harman et al., “Strong higher order mutation-based test data generation,” in ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Foundations Software Engineering, Szeged, Hungary, 2011, pp. 212-222.
    • [32] G. Fraser and A. Zeller, “Mutation-driven generation of unit tests and oracles,” in Proc. 21st IEEE Int. Symp. Software Reliability Engineering, San Jose, CA, pp. 147-158.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article