skip to main content

Title: An Extensive Study on Cross-Project Predictive Mutation Testing
Mutation testing is a powerful technique for evaluating the quality of test suite which plays a key role in ensuring software quality. The concept of mutation testing has also been widely used in other software engineering studies, e.g., test generation, fault localization, and program repair. During the process of mutation testing, large number of mutants may be generated and then executed against the test suite to examine whether they can be killed, making the process extremely computational expensive. Several techniques have been proposed to speed up this process, including selective, weakened, and predictive mutation testing. Among those techniques, Predictive Mutation Testing (PMT) tries to build a classification model based on an amount of mutant execution records to predict whether coming new mutants would be killed or alive without mutant execution, and can achieve significant mutation cost reduction. In PMT, each mutant is represented as a list of features related to the mutant itself and the test suite, transforming the mutation testing problem to a binary classification problem. In this paper, we perform an extensive study on the effectiveness and efficiency of the promising PMT technique under the cross-project setting using a total 654 real world projects with more than 4 more » Million mutants. Our work also complements the original PMT work by considering more features and the powerful deep learning models. The experimental results show an average of over 0.85 prediction accuracy on 654 projects using cross validation, demonstrating the effectiveness of PMT. Meanwhile, a clear speed up is also observed with an average of 28.7× compared to traditional mutation testing with 5 threads. In addition, we analyze the importance of different groups of features in classification model, which provides important implications for the future research. « less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1763906
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10111193
Journal Name:
IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST)
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
160 to 171
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Mutation testing is widely used in research as a metric for evaluating the quality of test suites. Mutation testing runs the test suite on generated mutants (variants of the code under test), where a test suite kills a mutant if any of the tests fail when run on the mutant. Mutation testing implicitly assumes that tests exhibit deterministic behavior, in terms of their coverage and the outcome of a test (not) killing a certain mutant. Such an assumption does not hold in the presence of flaky tests, whose outcomes can non-deterministically differ even when run on the same code under test. Without reliable test outcomes, mutation testing can result in unreliable results, e.g., in our experiments, mutation scores vary by four percentage points on average between repeated executions, and 9% of mutant-test pairs have an unknown status. Many modern software projects suffer from flaky tests. We propose techniques that manage flakiness throughout the mutation testing process, largely based on strategically re-running tests. We implement our techniques by modifying the open-source mutation testing tool, PIT. Our evaluation on 30 projects shows that our techniques reduce the number of "unknown" (flaky) mutants by 79.4%.
  2. Code coverage is the most widely adopted criteria for measuring test effectiveness in software quality assurance. The performance of coverage criteria (in indicating test suites' effectiveness) has been widely studied in prior work. Most of the studies use randomly constructed pseudo test suites to facilitate data collection for correlation analysis, yet no previous work has systematically studied whether pseudo test suites would lead to inflated correlation results. This paper focuses on the potentially wide-spread threat with a study over 123 real-world Java projects. Following the typical experimental process of studying coverage criteria, we investigate the correlation between statement/assertion coverage and mutation score using both pseudo and original test suites. Except for direct correlation analysis, we control the number of assertions and the test suite size to conduct partial correlation analysis. The results reveal that 1) the correlation (between coverage criteria and mutation score) derived from pseudo test suites is much higher than from original test suites (from 0.21 to 0.39 higher in Kendall value); 2) contrary to previously reported, statement coverage has a stronger correlation with mutation score than assertion coverage.
  3. While the existing methods for testing XACML policies have varying levels of effectiveness, none of them can reveal the majority of policy faults. The undisclosed faults may lead to unauthorized access and denial of service. This paper presents an approach to strong mutation testing of XACML policies that automatically generates tests from the mutants of a given policy. Such mutants represent the targeted faults that may appear in the policy. In this approach, we first compose the strong mutation constraints that capture the semantic difference between each mutant and its original policy. Then, we use a constraint solver to derive an access request (i.e., test). The test suite generated from all the mutants of a policy can achieve a perfect mutation score, thus uncover all hypothesized faults or demonstrate their absence. Based on the mutation-based approach, this paper further explores optimal test suite that achieves a perfect mutation score without duplicate tests. To evaluate the proposed approach, our experiments have included all the subject policies in the relevant literature and used a number of new policies. The results demonstrate that: (1) it is scalable to generate a mutation-based test suite to achieve a perfect mutation score, (2) it can bemore »impractical to generate the optimal test suite due to the expensive removal of duplicate tests, (3) different from the results of the existing study, the modified-condition/decision coverage-based method, currently the most effective one, has low mutation scores for several policies.« less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  5. de Meaux, Juliette (Ed.)
    Abstract Genetic redundancy refers to a situation where an individual with a loss-of-function mutation in one gene (single mutant) does not show an apparent phenotype until one or more paralogs are also knocked out (double/higher-order mutant). Previous studies have identified some characteristics common among redundant gene pairs, but a predictive model of genetic redundancy incorporating a wide variety of features derived from accumulating omics and mutant phenotype data is yet to be established. In addition, the relative importance of these features for genetic redundancy remains largely unclear. Here, we establish machine learning models for predicting whether a gene pair is likely redundant or not in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana based on six feature categories: functional annotations, evolutionary conservation including duplication patterns and mechanisms, epigenetic marks, protein properties including post-translational modifications, gene expression, and gene network properties. The definition of redundancy, data transformations, feature subsets, and machine learning algorithms used significantly affected model performance based on hold-out, testing phenotype data. Among the most important features in predicting gene pairs as redundant were having a paralog(s) from recent duplication events, annotation as a transcription factor, downregulation during stress conditions, and having similar expression patterns under stress conditions. We also explored themore »potential reasons underlying mispredictions and limitations of our studies. This genetic redundancy model sheds light on characteristics that may contribute to long-term maintenance of paralogs, and will ultimately allow for more targeted generation of functionally informative double mutants, advancing functional genomic studies.« less