Syntactic Vs. Semantic similarity of Artificial and Real Faults in Mutation Testing Studies

E-print/Working paper (2023)

Fault seeding is typically used in empirical studies to evaluate and compare test techniques. Central to these techniques lies the hypothesis that artificially seeded faults involve some form of realistic ... [more ▼]

Fault seeding is typically used in empirical studies to evaluate and compare test techniques. Central to these techniques lies the hypothesis that artificially seeded faults involve some form of realistic properties and thus provide realistic experimental results. In an attempt to strengthen realism, a recent line of re- search uses machine learning techniques, such as deep learning and Natural Language Processing, to seed faults that look like (syntactically) real ones, implying that fault realism is related to syntactic similarity. This raises the question of whether seeding syntactically similar faults indeed results in semantically similar faults and, more generally, whether syntactically dissimilar faults are far away (semantically) from the real ones. We answer this question by employing 4 state-of-the-art fault-seeding techniques (PiTest - a popular mutation testing tool, IBIR - a tool with manually crafted fault patterns, DeepMutation - a learning-based fault seeded framework and μBERT - a mutation testing tool based on the pre-trained language model CodeBERT) that operate in a fundamentally different way, and demonstrate that syntactic similarity does not reflect semantic similarity. We also show that 65.11%, 76.44%, 61.39% and 9.76% of the real faults of Defects4J V2 are semantically resembled by PiTest, IBIR, μBERT and Deep- Mutation faults, respectively. [less ▲]

Mutation Testing in Evolving Systems: Studying the relevance of mutants to code evolution

in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2022)

Context: When software evolves, opportunities for introducing faults appear. Therefore, it is important to test the evolved program behaviors during each evolution cycle. However, while software evolves ... [more ▼]

Context: When software evolves, opportunities for introducing faults appear. Therefore, it is important to test the evolved program behaviors during each evolution cycle. However, while software evolves, its complexity is also evolving, introducing challenges to the testing process. To deal with this issue, testing techniques should be adapted to target the effect of the program changes instead of the entire program functionality. To this end, commit-aware mutation testing, a powerful testing technique, has been proposed. Unfortunately, commit-aware mutation testing is challenging due to the complex program semantics involved. Hence, it is pertinent to understand the characteristics, predictability, and potential of the technique. Objective: We conduct an exploratory study to investigate the properties of commit-relevant mutants, i.e., the test elements of commit-aware mutation testing, by proposing a general definition and an experimental approach to identify them. We thus, aim at investigating the prevalence, location, and comparative advantages of commit-aware mutation testing over time (i.e., the program evolution). We also investigate the predictive power of several commit-related features in identifying and selecting commit-relevant mutants to understand the essential properties for its best-effort application case. Method: Our commit-relevant definition relies on the notion of observational slicing, approximated by higher-order mutation. Specifically, our approach utilizes the impact of mutants, effects of one mutant on another in capturing and analyzing the implicit interactions between the changed and unchanged code parts. The study analyses millions of mutants (over 10 million), 288 commits, five (5) different open-source software projects involving over 68,213 CPU days of computation and sets a ground truth where we perform our analysis. Results: Our analysis shows that commit-relevant mutants are located mainly outside of program commit change (81%), suggesting a limitation in previous work. We also note that effective selection of commit-relevant mutants has the potential of reducing the number of mutants by up to 93%. In addition, we demonstrate that commit relevant mutation testing is significantly more effective and efficient than state-of-the-art baselines, i.e., random mutant selection and analysis of only mutants within the program change. In our analysis of the predictive power of mutants and commit-related features (e.g., number of mutants within a change, mutant type, and commit size) in predicting commit-relevant mutants, we found that most proxy features do not reliably predict commit-relevant mutants. Conclusion: This empirical study highlights the properties of commit-relevant mutants and demonstrates the importance of identifying and selecting commit-relevant mutants when testing evolving software systems. [less ▲]

µBert: Mutation Testing using Pre-Trained Language Models

in Degiovanni, Renzo Gaston; Papadakis, Mike (Eds.) µBert: Mutation Testing using Pre-Trained Language Models (2022)

We introduce µBert, a mutation testing tool that uses a pre-trained language model (CodeBERT) to generate mutants. This is done by masking a token from the expression given as input and using CodeBERT to ... [more ▼]

We introduce µBert, a mutation testing tool that uses a pre-trained language model (CodeBERT) to generate mutants. This is done by masking a token from the expression given as input and using CodeBERT to predict it. Thus, the mutants are generated by replacing the masked tokens with the predicted ones. We evaluate µBert on 40 real faults from Defects4J and show that it can detect 27 out of the 40 faults, while the baseline (PiTest) detects 26 of them. We also show that µBert can be 2 times more cost-effective than PiTest, when the same number of mutants are analysed. Additionally, we evaluate the impact of µBert's mutants when used by program assertion inference techniques, and show that they can help in producing better specifications. Finally, we discuss about the quality and naturalness of some interesting mutants produced by µBert during our experimental evaluation. [less ▲]

Training binary classifiers as data structure invariants

in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25-31, 2019 (2019)

We present a technique that enables us to distinguish valid from invalid data structure objects. The technique is based on building an artificial neural network, more precisely a binary classifier, and ... [more ▼]

We present a technique that enables us to distinguish valid from invalid data structure objects. The technique is based on building an artificial neural network, more precisely a binary classifier, and training it to identify valid and invalid instances of a data structure. The obtained classifier can then be used in place of the data structure’s invariant, in order to attempt to identify (in)correct behaviors in programs manipulating the structure. In order to produce the valid objects to train the network, an assumed-correct set of object building routines is randomly executed. Invalid instances are produced by generating values for object fields that “break” the collected valid values, i.e., that assign values to object fields that have not been observed as feasible in the assumed-correct program executions that led to the collected valid instances. We experimentally assess this approach, over a benchmark of data structures. We show that this learning technique produces classifiers that achieve significantly better accuracy in classifying valid/invalid objects compared to a technique for dynamic invariant detection, and leads to improved bug finding. [less ▲]