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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutation testing can help reduce the risks of releasing faulty software. For such reason, it is a desired practice for the development of embedded software running in safety-critical cyber-physical systems (CPS). Unfortunately, state-of-the-art test data generation techniques for mutation testing of C and C++ software, two typical languages for CPS software, rely on symbolic execution, whose limitations often prevent its application (e.g., it cannot test black-box components). We propose a mutation testing approach that leverages fuzz testing, which has proved effective with C and C++ software. Fuzz testing automatically generates diverse test inputs that exercise program branches in a varied number of ways and, therefore, exercise statements in different program states, thus maximizing the likelihood of killing mutants, our objective. We performed an empirical assessment of our approach with software components used in satellite systems currently in orbit. Our empirical evaluation shows that mutation testing based on fuzz testing kills a significantly higher proportion of live mutants than symbolic execution (i.e., up to an additional 47 percentage points). Further, when symbolic execution cannot be applied, fuzz testing provides significant benefits (i.e., up to 41% mutants killed). Our study is the first one comparing fuzz testing and symbolic execution for mutation testing; our results provide guidance towards the development of fuzz testing tools dedicated to mutation testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it