MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378676770 · doi:10.1109/icstw58534.2023.00060

Analysis of mutation operators for FSM testing

2023· article· en· W4378676770 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMutation testingMutationComputer scienceOperator (biology)Finite-state machineSoftware testingSoftware fault toleranceProcess (computing)SoftwareSet (abstract data type)Fault (geology)MutantTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutation analysis is being extensively used for testing from a finite state machine (FSM); it consists in seeding a fault in the model using a mutation operator. There is still a lot that we need to know about mutation fault for FSM so that we can adequately use them in software testing or in software testing experiments. In this paper, we report on results from an empirical experiment during which we compared different mutation operators used to generate mutants from an FSM. We randomly generated multiple FSMs along with all the possible mutants from a relatively complete set of mutation operators. We then generated test suites using transition trees which are then executed on the FSM and its mutants to measure the mutation score for each mutation operator using different types of oracles. In doing so we report on how easy or difficult mutants generated from specific mutation operators can be. We have developed a tool that automates the whole process of this experiment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it