Prioritizing Mutants to Guide Mutation Testing
Samuel J. Kaufman, Ryan Featherman, Justin Alvin, Bob Kurtz, Paul Ammann, René Just
Abstract
Mutation testing offers concrete test goals (mutants) and a rigorous test efficacy criterion, but it is expensive due to vast numbers of mutants, many of which are neither useful nor actionable. Prior work has focused on selecting representative and sufficient mutant subsets, measuring whether a test set that is mutation-adequate for the subset is equally adequate for the entire set. However, no known industrial application of mutation testing uses or even computes mutation adequacy, instead focusing on iteratively presenting very few mutants as concrete test goals for developers to write tests. This paper (1) articulates important differences between mutation analysis, where measuring mutation adequacy is of interest, and mutation testing, where mutants are of interest insofar as they serve as concrete test goals to elict effective tests; (2) introduces a new measure of mutant usefulness, called test completeness advancement probability (TCAP); (3) introduces an approach to prioritizing mutants by incrementally selecting mutants based on their predicted TCAP; and (4) presents simulations showing that TCAP-based prioritization of mutants advances test completeness more rapidly than prioritization with the previous state-of-the-art. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging; Empirical software 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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3f6d9886-0028-4a86-8760-e3737c25e260Cited by top-tier papers10
- Guiding Greybox Fuzzing with Mutation TestingVasudev Vikram, Isabella Laybourn, Ao Li, Nicole Nair et al.ISSTA 2023 · 22 citations
- Contextual Predictive Mutation TestingKush Jain, Uri Alon, Alex Groce, Claire Le GouesFSE 2023 · 11 citations
- Who Judges the Judge: An Empirical Study on Online Judge TestsKaibo Liu, Yudong Han, Jie M. Zhang, Zhenpeng Chen et al.ISSTA 2023 · 10 citations
- Syntax Is All You Need: A Universal-Language Approach to Mutant GenerationSourav Deb, Kush Jain, Rijnard van Tonder, Claire Le Goues et al.FSE 2024 · 7 citations
- Equivalent Mutants in the Wild: Identifying and Efficiently Suppressing Equivalent Mutants for Java ProgramsBenjamin Kushigian, Samuel J. Kaufman, Ryan Featherman, Hannah Potter et al.ISSTA 2024 · 3 citations
Builds on2
- Revisiting the Relationship Between Fault Detection, Test Adequacy Criteria, and Test Set SizeYiqun T. Chen, Rahul Gopinath, Anita Tadakamalla, Michael D. Ernst et al.ASE 2020 · 48 citations
- Does mutation testing improve testing practices?Goran Petrovic, Marko Ivankovic, Gordon Fraser, René JustICSE 2021 · 6 citations
Related papers
- To Kill a Mutant: An Empirical Study of Mutation Testing KillsHang Du, Vijay Krishna Palepu, James A. JonesISSTA 2023 · 5 citations
- Cost measures matter for mutation testing study validityGiovani Guizzo, Federica Sarro, Mark HarmanFSE 2020 · 11 citations
- Systematic Assessment of Fuzzers using Mutation AnalysisPhilipp Görz, Björn Mathis, Keno Hassler, Emre Güler et al.USENIX Security 2023
- Leveraging Propagated Infection to Crossfire MutantsHang Du, Vijay Krishna Palepu, James A. JonesICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Using Active Learning to Train Predictive Mutation Testing with Minimal DataMiklos BorsiASE 2025
