| 1 | Lin Deng and Jeff Offutt and Paul Ammann and Nariman Mirzaei
Mutation operators for testing Android apps
Information {\&} Software Technology, 81(), 2017. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @ARTICLE{DengOAM17,
author = {Lin Deng and Jeff Offutt and Paul Ammann and Nariman Mirzaei},
title = {Mutation operators for testing Android apps},
journal = {Information {\&} Software Technology},
year = {2017},
month = {},
volume = {81},
number = {},
pages = {154--168}
} |
| 2 | Ren{\'{e}} Just and Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann
Inferring mutant utility from program context
Proceedings of the 26th {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, July 10 - 14, 2017, 2017. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{JustKA17,
author = {Ren{\'{e}} Just and Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann},
title = {Inferring mutant utility from program context},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, July 10 - 14, 2017},
year = {2017},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {284--294}
} |
| 3 | Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt
Introduction to software testing
Unknown- |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | Unknown++ |
| 4 | Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Mariet Kurtz and Nida G{\"{o}}k{\c{c}}e
Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants
Proceedings of the 24th {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, {FSE} 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18, 2016, 2016. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KurtzAODKG16,
author = {Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Mariet Kurtz and Nida G{\"{o}}k{\c{c}}e},
title = {Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, {FSE} 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18, 2016},
year = {2016},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {571--582}
} |
| 5 | Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt and Mariet Kurtz
Are We There Yet? How Redundant and Equivalent Mutants Affect Determination of Test Completeness
Ninth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, {ICST} Workshops 2016, Chicago, IL, USA, April 11-15, 2016, 2016. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KurtzAOK16,
author = {Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt and Mariet Kurtz},
title = {Are We There Yet? How Redundant and Equivalent Mutants Affect Determination of Test Completeness},
booktitle = {Ninth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops, {ICST} Workshops 2016, Chicago, IL, USA, April 11-15, 2016},
year = {2016},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {142--151}
} |
| 6 | Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt
Static analysis of mutant subsumption
Eighth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2015 Workshops, Graz, Austria, April 13-17, 2015, 2015. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KurtzAO15,
author = {Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt},
title = {Static analysis of mutant subsumption},
booktitle = {Eighth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2015 Workshops, Graz, Austria, April 13-17, 2015},
year = {2015},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {1--10}
} |
| 7 | Lin Deng and Nariman Mirzaei and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt
Towards mutation analysis of Android apps
Eighth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2015 Workshops, Graz, Austria, April 13-17, 2015, 2015. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{DengMAO15,
author = {Lin Deng and Nariman Mirzaei and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt},
title = {Towards mutation analysis of Android apps},
booktitle = {Eighth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2015 Workshops, Graz, Austria, April 13-17, 2015},
year = {2015},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {1--10}
} |
| 8 | M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt and Paul Ammann
Designing Deletion Mutation Operators
Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014, March 31 2014-April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}, 2014. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{DelamaroOA14,
author = {M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt and Paul Ammann},
title = {Designing Deletion Mutation Operators},
booktitle = {Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014, March 31 2014-April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}},
year = {2014},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {11--20}
} |
| 9 | Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt and Lin Deng
Mutant Subsumption Graphs
Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014 Workshops Proceedings, March 31 - April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}, 2014. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KurtzADOD14,
author = {Bob Kurtz and Paul Ammann and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt and Lin Deng},
title = {Mutant Subsumption Graphs},
booktitle = {Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014 Workshops Proceedings, March 31 - April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}},
year = {2014},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {176--185}
} |
| 10 | Paul Ammann and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt
Establishing Theoretical Minimal Sets of Mutants
Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014, March 31 2014-April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}, 2014. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{AmmannDO14,
author = {Paul Ammann and M{\'{a}}rcio Eduardo Delamaro and Jeff Offutt},
title = {Establishing Theoretical Minimal Sets of Mutants},
booktitle = {Seventh {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2014, March 31 2014-April 4, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio, {USA}},
year = {2014},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {21--30}
} |
| 11 | Gary Kaminski and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt
Improving logic-based testing
Journal of Systems and Software, 86(8), 2013. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @ARTICLE{KaminskiAO13,
author = {Gary Kaminski and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt},
title = {Improving logic-based testing},
journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
year = {2013},
month = {},
volume = {86},
number = {8},
pages = {2002--2012}
} |
| 12 | Gary Kaminski and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt
Better predicate testing
Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test, {AST} 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 23-24, 2011, 2011. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KaminskiAO11,
author = {Gary Kaminski and Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt},
title = {Better predicate testing},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test, {AST} 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 23-24, 2011},
year = {2011},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {57--63}
} |
| 13 | Garrentt Kent Kaminski and Paul Ammann
Using a Fault Hierarchy to Improve the Efficiency of DNF Logic Mutation Testing
Proceedings of the 2nd International Coference on Software Testing Verification and Validation (ICST'09)Davor Colorado, 1-4 April 2009. |
|
| | Abstract: Mutation testing is a technique for generating high quality test data. However, logic mutation testing is currently inefficient for three reasons. One, the same mutant is generated more than once. Two, mutants are generated that are guaranteed to be killed by a test that kills some other generated mutant. Three, mutants that when killed are guaranteed to kill many other mutants are not generated as valuable mutation operators are missing. This paper improves logic mutation testing by 1) extending a logic fault hierarchy to include existing logic mutation operators, 2) introducing new logic mutation operators based on existing faults in the hierarchy, 3) introducing new logic mutation operators having no corresponding faults in the hierarchy and extending the hierarchy to include them, and 4) addressing the precise effects of equivalent mutants on the fault hierarchy. An empirical study using minimal DNF predicates in avionics software showed that a new logic mutation testing approach generates fewer mutants, detects more faults, and outperforms an existing logic criterion. |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KaminskiA09b,
author = {Garrentt Kent Kaminski and Paul Ammann},
title = {Using a Fault Hierarchy to Improve the Efficiency of DNF Logic Mutation Testing},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Coference on Software Testing Verification and Validation (ICST'09)},
year = {2009},
address = {Davor Colorado},
month = {1-4 April},
pages = {386–395}
} |
| 14 | Garrett Kaminski and Paul Ammann
Using Logic Criterion Feasibility to Reduce Test Set Size While Guaranteeing Double Fault Detection
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION'09)Denver, Colorado, 1-4 April 2009. |
|
| | Abstract: Logic criteria are used in software testing to find inputs that guarantee detecting certain faults. Thus, satisfying a logic criterion guarantees killing certain mutants. Some logic criteria are composed of other criteria. Determining component criterion feasibility can be used as a means to reduce test set size without sacrificing fault detection. This paper introduces a new logic criterion based on component criterion feasibility. Given a predicate in minimal DNF, a determination is made of which component criteria are feasible for individual literals and terms. This in turn provides determination of which criteria are necessary to detect double faults and kill second-order mutants. A test set satisfying this new criterion guarantees detecting the same double faults as a larger test set satisfying another criterion. An empirical study using predicates in avionics software showed that tests sets satisfying the new criterion detected all but one double fault type. For this one double fault type, 99.91% of the double faults were detected and combining equivalent single faults nearly always yielded an equivalent double fault. |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KaminskiA09,
author = {Garrett Kaminski and Paul Ammann},
title = {Using Logic Criterion Feasibility to Reduce Test Set Size While Guaranteeing Double Fault Detection},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION'09)},
year = {2009},
address = {Denver, Colorado},
month = {1-4 April},
pages = {167-176}
} |
| 15 | Garrett Kent Kaminski and Paul Ammann
Using a Fault Hierarchy to Improve the Efficiency of {DNF} Logic Mutation Testing
Second International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2009, Denver, Colorado, USA, April 1-4, 2009, 2009. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{KaminskiA09a,
author = {Garrett Kent Kaminski and Paul Ammann},
title = {Using a Fault Hierarchy to Improve the Efficiency of {DNF} Logic Mutation Testing},
booktitle = {Second International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2009, Denver, Colorado, USA, April 1-4, 2009},
year = {2009},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {386--395}
} |
| 16 | A. Jefferson Offutt and Paul Ammann and Lisa (Ling) Liu
Mutation Testing implements Grammar-Based Testing
Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION'06)Raleigh, North Carolina, November 2006. |
|
| | Abstract: This paper presents an abstract view of mutation analysis. Mutation was originally thought of as making changes to program source, but similar kinds of changes have been applied to other artifacts, including program specifications, XML, and input languages. This paper argues that mutation analysis is actually a way to modify any software artifact based on its syntactic description, and is in the same family of test generation methods that create inputs from syntactic descriptions. The essential characteristic of mutation is that a syntactic description such as a grammar is used to create tests. We call this abstract view grammar-based testing, and view it as an interface, which mutation analysis implements. This shift in view allows mutation to be defined in a general way, yielding three benefits. First, it provides a simpler way to understand mutation. Second, it makes it easier to develop future applications of mutation analysis, such as finite state machines and use case collaboration diagrams. The third benefit, which due to space limitations is not explored in this paper, is ensuring that existing techniques are complete according to the criteria defined here. |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{OffuttAL06,
author = {A. Jefferson Offutt and Paul Ammann and Lisa (Ling) Liu},
title = {Mutation Testing implements Grammar-Based Testing},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Mutation Analysis (MUTATION'06)},
year = {2006},
address = {Raleigh, North Carolina},
month = {November},
pages = {12}
} |
| 17 | Paul Ammann
System Testing via Mutation Analysis of Model Checking Specifications
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 25(1), January 2000. |
|
| | Abstract: The objective of this research is a novel combination of three important threads in software engineering: system level testing, formal methods, and mutation analysis. The research promises better methods, and mutation analysis. The research promises better methods to test software, and hence tools for developers to produce better software. |
| | @ARTICLE{Ammann00,
author = {Paul Ammann},
title = {System Testing via Mutation Analysis of Model Checking Specifications},
journal = {ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes},
year = {2000},
month = {January},
volume = {25},
number = {1},
pages = {33}
} |
