| 1 | Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl
Empirical Studies on Test Effectiveness for Database Applications
Fifth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2012, Montreal, QC, Canada, April 17-21, 2012, 2012. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{zhou_ICST_12,
author = {Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl},
title = {Empirical Studies on Test Effectiveness for Database Applications},
booktitle = {Fifth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2012, Montreal, QC, Canada, April 17-21, 2012},
year = {2012},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {61--70}
} |
| 2 | Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl
Inferential Checking for Mutants Modifying Database States
Fourth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2011, Berlin, Germany, March 21-25, 2011, 2011. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{ZhouF11,
author = {Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl},
title = {Inferential Checking for Mutants Modifying Database States},
booktitle = {Fourth {IEEE} International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2011, Berlin, Germany, March 21-25, 2011},
year = {2011},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {259--268}
} |
| 3 | Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl
{JDAMA:} Java database application mutation analyser
Softw. Test., Verif. Reliab., 21(3), 2011. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @ARTICLE{zhou_STVR_11,
author = {Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl},
title = {{JDAMA:} Java database application mutation analyser},
journal = {Softw. Test., Verif. Reliab.},
year = {2011},
month = {},
volume = {21},
number = {3},
pages = {241--263}
} |
| 4 | Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl
Mutation Testing for Java Database Applications
Second International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2009, Denver, Colorado, USA, April 1-4, 2009, 2009. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{zhou_ICST_09,
author = {Chixiang Zhou and Phyllis G. Frankl},
title = {Mutation Testing for Java Database Applications},
booktitle = {Second International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation, {ICST} 2009, Denver, Colorado, USA, April 1-4, 2009},
year = {2009},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {396--405}
} |
| 5 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Oleg Iakounenko
Further Empirical Studies of Test Effectiveness
{SIGSOFT} '98, Proceedings of the {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, November 3-5, 1998, 1998. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{FranklI98,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Oleg Iakounenko},
title = {Further Empirical Studies of Test Effectiveness},
booktitle = {{SIGSOFT} '98, Proceedings of the {ACM} {SIGSOFT} International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, November 3-5, 1998},
year = {1998},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {153--162}
} |
| 6 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu
All-uses vs Mutation Testing: an Experimental Comparison of Effectiveness
Journal of Systems and Software, 38(3), September 1997. |
|
| | Abstract: The effectiveness of a test data adequacy criterion for a given program and specification is the probability that a test set satisfying the criterion will expose a fault. Experiments were performed to compare the effectiveness of the mutation testing and all-uses test data adequacy criteria at various coverage levels, for randomly generated test sets. Large numbers of test sets were generated and executed, and for each, the proportion of mutants killed or def-use associations covered was measured. This data was used to estimate and compare the effectiveness of the criteria. The results were mixed: at the highest coverage levels considered, mutation was more effective than all-uses for five of the nine subjects, all-uses was more effective than mutation for two subjects, and there was no clear winner for two subjects. However, mutation testing was much more expensive than all-uses. The relationship between coverage and effectiveness for fixed-sized test sets was also explored and was found to be nonlinear and, in many cases, nonmonotonic. |
| | @ARTICLE{FranklWH97,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu},
title = {All-uses vs Mutation Testing: an Experimental Comparison of Effectiveness},
journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
year = {1997},
month = {September},
volume = {38},
number = {3},
pages = {235-253}
} |
| 7 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu
All-uses vs mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness
Journal of Systems and Software, 38(3), 1997. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @ARTICLE{FranklWH97,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu},
title = {All-uses vs mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness},
journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
year = {1997},
month = {},
volume = {38},
number = {3},
pages = {235--253}
} |
| 8 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu
All-Uses Versus Mutation Testing: An Experimental Comparison of Effectiveness
Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York, 1994. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @TECHREPORT{FranklWH94,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss and Cang Hu},
title = {All-Uses Versus Mutation Testing: An Experimental Comparison of Effectiveness},
institution = {Polytechnic University},
year = {1994},
type = {techreport},
number = {},
address = {Brooklyn, New York},
month = {},
} |
| 9 | Phyllis G. Frankl and E.J. Weyuker
A Formal Analysis of the Fault-Detecting Ability of Testing Methods
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(3), March 1993. |
|
| | Abstract: Several relationships between software testing criteria, each induced by a relation between the corresponding multisets of subdomains, are examined. The authors discuss whether for each relation R and each pair of criteria, C/sub 1/ and C/sub 2/, R(C/sub 1/, C/sub 2/) guarantees that C/sub 1/ is better at detecting faults than C/sub 2/ according to various probabilistic measures of fault-detecting ability. It is shown that the fact that C/sub 1/ subsumes C/sub 2/ does not guarantee that C/sub 1/ is better at detecting faults. Relations that strengthen the subsumption relation and that have more bearing on fault-detecting ability are introduced. |
| | @ARTICLE{FranklW93,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and E.J. Weyuker},
title = {A Formal Analysis of the Fault-Detecting Ability of Testing Methods},
journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
year = {1993},
month = {March},
volume = {19},
number = {3},
pages = {202-213}
} |
| 10 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss
An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Branch Testing and Data Flow Testing
{IEEE} Trans. Software Eng., 19(8), 1993. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @ARTICLE{FranklW93a,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss},
title = {An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Branch Testing and Data Flow Testing},
journal = {{IEEE} Trans. Software Eng.},
year = {1993},
month = {},
volume = {19},
number = {8},
pages = {774--787}
} |
| 11 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Elaine J. Weyuker
Provable Improvements on Branch Testing
IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, 19(10), October 1993. |
|
| | Abstract: This paper compares the fault-detecting ability of several software test data adequacy criteria. It has previously been shown that if C/sub 1/ properly covers C/sub 2/, then C/sub 1/ is guaranteed to be better at detecting faults than C/sub 2/, in the following sense: a test suite selected by independent random selection of one test case from each subdomain induced by C/sub 1/ is at least as likely to detect a fault as a test suite similarly selected using C/sub 2/. In contrast, if C/sub 1/ subsumes but does not properly cover C/sub 2/, this is not necessarily the case. These results are used to compare a number of criteria, including several that have been proposed as stronger alternatives to branch testing. We compare the relative fault-detecting ability of data flow testing, mutation testing, and the condition-coverage techniques, to branch testing, showing that most of the criteria examined are guaranteed to be better than branch testing according to two probabilistic measures. We also show that there are criteria that can sometimes be poorer at detecting faults than substantially less expensive criteria. |
| | @ARTICLE{FranklW93a,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Elaine J. Weyuker},
title = {Provable Improvements on Branch Testing},
journal = {IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering},
year = {1993},
month = {October},
volume = {19},
number = {10},
pages = {962-971}
} |
| 12 | Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss
An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of the All-Uses and All-Edges Adequacy Criteria
Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification, 1991. |
|
| | Abstract: Available soon... |
| | @INPROCEEDINGS{FranklW91,
author = {Phyllis G. Frankl and Stewart N. Weiss},
title = {An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of the All-Uses and All-Edges Adequacy Criteria},
booktitle = {Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification},
year = {1991},
address = {},
month = {},
pages = {154--164}
} |
