Boosting LLMs for Mutation Generation
Bo Wang, Ming Deng, Mingda Chen, Chengran Yang, Youfang Lin, Mark Harman, Mike Papadakis, Jie M. Zhang
Abstract
LLM-based mutation testing is a promising testing technology, but existing approaches typically rely on a fixed set of mutations as few-shot examples or none at all. This can result in generic low-quality mutations, missed context-specific mutation patterns, substantial numbers of redundant and uncompilable mutants, and limited semantic similarity to real bugs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SMART (Semantic Mutation with Adaptive Retrieval and Tuning). SMART integrates retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on a vectorized dataset of real-world bugs, focused code chunking, and supervised fine-tuning using mutations coupled with real-world bugs. We conducted an extensive empirical study of SMART using 1,991 real-world Java bugs from the Defects4J and ConDefects datasets, comparing SMART to the state-of-the-art LLM-based approaches, LLMut and LLMorpheus.
The results reveal that SMART substantially improves mutation validity, effectiveness, and efficiency (even enabling small-scale 7B-scale models to match or even surpass large models like GPT-4o). We also demonstrate that SMART significantly improves downstream software engineering applications, including test case prioritization and fault localization. More specifically, SMART improves validity (weighted average generation rate) from 42.89% to 65.6%. It raises the non-duplicate rate from 87.38% to 95.62%, and the compilable rate from 88.85% to 90.21%. In terms of effectiveness, it achieves a real bug detection rate of 92.61% (vs. 57.86% for LLMut) and improves the average Ochiai coefficient from 25.61% to 38.44%. For fault localization, SMART ranks 64 more bugs as Top-1 under MUSE and 57 more under Metallaxis. CCS Concepts: • Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging.
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 a6fb6fd2-35a6-4518-ac5e-bfe28a3322b2Builds on11
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksPatrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 19,162 citations
- CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and GenerationYue Wang, Weishi Wang, Shafiq R. Joty, Steven C. H. HoiEMNLP 2021 · 1,224 citations
- CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and GenerationYue Wang, Hung Le, Akhilesh Gotmare, Nghi D. Q. Bui et al.EMNLP 2023 · 339 citations
- Large Language Models are Edge-Case Generators: Crafting Unusual Programs for Fuzzing Deep Learning LibrariesYinlin Deng, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Chenyuan Yang, Shizhuo Dylan Zhang et al.ICSE 2024 · 85 citations
- Prioritizing Mutants to Guide Mutation TestingSamuel J. Kaufman, Ryan Featherman, Justin Alvin, Bob Kurtz et al.ICSE 2022 · 36 citations
Related papers
- LLMSQLMUTATOR: LLM-Powered Test Case Generation for Database Using Bug ReportsChenglin Tian, Chaofan Li, Yawen Li, Yingxia ShaoICDE 2026
- Test vs Mutant: Adversarial LLM Agents for Robust Unit Test GenerationPengyu Chang, Yixiong Fang, Silin Chen, Yuling Shi et al.ISSTA 2026
- SmartFuzz: Leveraging Large Language Models and Feature Composition to Generate High-Quality Seeds for Database FuzzingLi Lin, Jintai Hong, Yanlin Zhuang, Rongxin WuOOPSLA 2026
- TOGLL: Correct and Strong Test Oracle Generation with LLMSSoneya Binta Hossain, Matthew B. DwyerICSE 2025 · 12 citations
- Do LLMs Generate Useful Test Oracles? An Empirical Study with an Unbiased DatasetDavide Molinelli, Luca Di Grazia, Alberto Martin-Lopez, Michael D. Ernst et al.ASE 2025 · 3 citations
