An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Mutation Testing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09843v2
• Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:56:09 GMT
• Title: An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Mutation Testing
• Authors: Bo Wang, Mingda Chen, Youfang Lin, Mike Papadakis, Jie M. Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code-related tasks but their utility in mutation testing remains unexplored. This paper investigates the performance of LLMs in generating effective mutations to their usability, fault detection potential, and relationship with real bugs. We find that compared to existing approaches, LLMs generate more diverse mutations that are behaviorally closer to real bugs.
• Score: 32.91472707292504
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Mutation testing is a foundation approach in the software testing field, based on automatically seeded small syntactic changes, known as mutations. The question of how to generate high-utility mutations, to be used for testing purposes, forms a key challenge in mutation testing literature. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code-related tasks but their utility in mutation testing remains unexplored. To this end, we systematically investigate the performance of LLMs in generating effective mutations w.r.t. to their usability, fault detection potential, and relationship with real bugs. In particular, we perform a large-scale empirical study involving six LLMs, including both state-of-the-art open- and closed-source models, and 851 real bugs on two Java benchmarks (i.e., 605 bugs from 12 projects of Defects4J 2.0 and 246 bugs of ConDefects). We find that compared to existing approaches, LLMs generate more diverse mutations that are behaviorally closer to real bugs, which leads to approximately 19% higher fault detection than current approaches (i.e., 93% vs. 74%). Nevertheless, the mutants generated by LLMs have worse compilability rate, useless mutation rate, and equivalent mutation rate than those generated by rule-based approaches. This paper also examines alternative prompt engineering strategies and identifies the root causes of uncompilable mutations, providing insights for researchers to further enhance the performance of LLMs in mutation testing.

Related papers

• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• TOGLL: Correct and Strong Test Oracle Generation with LLMs [0.8057006406834466]
  Test oracles play a crucial role in software testing, enabling effective bug detection. Despite initial promise, neural-based methods for automated test oracle generation often result in a large number of false positives. We present the first comprehensive study to investigate the capabilities of LLMs in generating correct, diverse, and strong test oracles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T18:37:35Z)
• LLMorpheus: Mutation Testing using Large Language Models [7.312170216336085]
  This paper presents a technique where a Large Language Model (LLM) is prompted to suggest mutations by asking it what placeholders that have been inserted in source code could be replaced with. We find LLMorpheus to be capable of producing mutants that resemble existing bugs that cannot be produced by StrykerJS, a state-of-the-art mutation testing tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T17:25:14Z)
• An Empirical Evaluation of Manually Created Equivalent Mutants [54.02049952279685]
  Less than 10 % of manually created mutants are equivalent. Surprisingly, our findings indicate that a significant portion of developers struggle to accurately identify equivalent mutants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T13:04:10Z)
• NoMIRACL: Knowing When You Don't Know for Robust Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation [92.5132418788568]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure robustness using two metrics: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate an answer, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction [12.851941377433285]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been demonstrated to be adept at natural language processing and code generation. Our proposed technique LIBRO could successfully reproduce about one-third of all bugs in the widely used Defects4J benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T08:42:30Z)
• Effective Test Generation Using Pre-trained Large Language Models and Mutation Testing [13.743062498008555]
  We introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) in terms of revealing bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs) Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T08:48:31Z)
• A Stitch in Time Saves Nine: Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations of LLMs by Validating Low-Confidence Generation [76.34411067299331]
  Large language models often tend to 'hallucinate' which critically hampers their reliability. We propose an approach that actively detects and mitigates hallucinations during the generation process. We show that the proposed active detection and mitigation approach successfully reduces the hallucinations of the GPT-3.5 model from 47.5% to 14.5% on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-08T14:25:57Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Mutation Testing of Deep Reinforcement Learning Based on Real Faults [11.584571002297217]
  This paper builds on the existing approach of Mutation Testing (MT) to extend it to Reinforcement Learning (RL) systems. We show that the design choice of the mutation killing definition can affect whether or not a mutation is killed as well as the generated test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-13T16:45:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.