Ripples of a Mutation - An Empirical Study of Propagation Effects in Mutation Testing
Hang Du, Vijay Krishna Palepu, James A. Jones
Abstract
The mechanics of how a fault reveals itself as a test failure is of keen interest to software researchers and practitioners alike. An improved understanding of how faults translate to failures can guide improvements in broad facets of software testing, ranging from test suite design to automated program repair, which are premised on the understanding that the presence of faults would alter some test executions. In this work, we study such effects by mutations, as applicable in mutation testing. Mutation testing enables the generation of a large corpus of faults; thereby harvesting a large pool of mutated test runs for analysis. Specifically, we analyze more than 1.1 million mutated test runs to study if and how the underlying mutations induce infections that propagate their way to observable failures. We adopt a broad-spectrum approach to analyze such a large pool of mutated runs. For every mutated test run, we are able to determine: (a) if the mutation induced a state infection; (b) if the infection propagated through the end of the test run; and (c) if the test failed in the presence of a propagated infection. By examining such infection-, propagation-and revealabilityeffects for more than 43,000 mutations executed across 1.1 million test runs we are able to arrive at some surprising findings. Our results find that once state infection is observed, propagation is frequently detected; however, a propagated infection does not always reveal itself as a test failure. We also find that a significant portion of survived mutants in our study could have been killed by observing propagated state infections that were left undetected. Finally, we also find that different mutation operators can demonstrate substantial differences in their specific impacts on the execution-to-failure ripples of the resulting mutations. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Software verification and validation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers4
- Increasing the Effectiveness of Automatically Generated Tests by Improving Class ObservabilityGeraldine Galindo-Gutierrez, Juan Pablo Sandoval Alcocer, Nicolas Jimenez-Fuentes, Alexandre Bergel et al.ICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Leveraging Propagated Infection to Crossfire MutantsHang Du, Vijay Krishna Palepu, James A. JonesICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- AutoCodeSherpa: Symbolic Explanations in AI Coding AgentsSungmin Kang, Haifeng Ruan, Abhik RoychoudhuryISSTA 2026
- What's DAT Smell? Untangling and Weaving the Disjoint Assertion Tangle Test SmellMonil Narang, Hang Du, James A. JonesASE 2025
Builds on3
- Inline TestsYu Liu, Pengyu Nie, Owolabi Legunsen, Milos GligoricASE 2022 · 10 citations
- Extracting Inline Tests from Unit TestsYu Liu, Pengyu Nie, Anna Guo, Milos Gligoric et al.ISSTA 2023 · 7 citations
- To Kill a Mutant: An Empirical Study of Mutation Testing KillsHang Du, Vijay Krishna Palepu, James A. JonesISSTA 2023 · 5 citations
Related papers
- Test Flimsiness: Characterizing Flakiness Induced by Mutation to the Code Under TestOwain Parry, Gregory M. Kapfhammer, Michael Hilton, Phil McMinnICSE 2026
- Transforming Test Suites into CroissantsYang Chen, Alperen Yildiz, Darko Marinov, Reyhaneh JabbarvandISSTA 2023 · 5 citations
- On the use of mutation analysis for evaluating student test suite qualityJames Perretta, Andrew DeOrio, Arjun Guha, Jonathan BellISSTA 2022 · 6 citations
- Does mutation testing improve testing practices?Goran Petrovic, Marko Ivankovic, Gordon Fraser, René JustICSE 2021 · 6 citations
- Do Coverage and Mutation Scores of LLM-Generated Test Suites Correlate with Their Effectiveness? (Replicability Study)Junda Zhao, Shurui Zhou, Eldan CohenISSTA 2026
