Mutation Testing Cost Reduction Techniques: A Survey

From the research perspective, mutation is a mature testing technique that has often shown its value for evaluating both software and software testing techniques. However, to the best of our knowledge, there's an important gap between its current research status and the possibilities of adopting it for the industrial world, owing to its high costs.

[1]  Richard A. DeMillo,et al.  Compiler-integrated program mutation , 1991, [1991] Proceedings The Fifteenth Annual International Computer Software & Applications Conference.

[2]  K. N. King,et al.  A fortran language system for mutation‐based software testing , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[3]  J. A. Acree.  On mutation , 1980 .

[4]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Hints on Test Data Selection: Help for the Practicing Programmer , 1978, Computer.

[5]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments? , 2005, ICSE.

[6]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Investigations of the software testing coupling effect , 1992, TSEM.

[7]  A Jeeerson Ooutt,et al.  Subsumption of Condition Coverage Techniques by Mutation Testing , 1996 .

[8]  R.A. DeMillo,et al.  An extended overview of the Mothra software testing environment , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Second Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis.

[9]  Mark Harman,et al.  Using program slicing to assist in the detection of equivalent mutants , 1999, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[10]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Automatically detecting equivalent mutants and infeasible paths , 1997, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[11]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Automatically detecting equivalent mutants and infeasible paths , 1997 .

[12]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Integrating techniques and tools for testing automation , 2007, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[13]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  Combination testing strategies: a survey , 2005, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[14]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Decreasing the cost of mutation testing with second-order mutants , 2009 .

[15]  S. N. Weiss,et al.  All-Uses versus Mutation Testing : An ExperimentalComparison of E ectiveness , 1996 .

[16]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators , 1996, TSEM.

[17]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Data Flow and Mutation Testing , 1996 .

[18]  Auri Marcelo Rizzo Vincenzi,et al.  Toward the determination of sufficient mutant operators for C † , 2001, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[19]  Leonardo Bottaci,et al.  Efficiency of mutation operators and selective mutation strategies: an empirical study , 1999, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[20]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  All-uses vs mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness , 1997, J. Syst. Softw..

[21]  Andreas Zeller,et al.  The Impact of Equivalent Mutants , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops.

[22]  William E. Howden,et al.  Weak Mutation Testing and Completeness of Test Sets , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[23]  A.P. Mathur.  Performance, effectiveness, and reliability issues in software testing , 1991, [1991] Proceedings The Fifteenth Annual International Computer Software & Applications Conference.

[24]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  MuJava: an automated class mutation system , 2005, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[25]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of Weak Mutation , 1994, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[26]  A. J. Offutt.  A practical system for mutation testing: help for the common programmer , 1994, Proceedings., International Test Conference.

[27]  MaYu-Seung,et al.  MuJava: an automated class mutation system , 2005 .

[28]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  An Applicable Family of Data Flow Testing Criteria , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[29]  Neelam Gupta,et al.  Test suite reduction with selective redundancy , 2005, 21st IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'05).