Metamorphic Coverage

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16307v1
• Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:32:56 GMT
• Title: Metamorphic Coverage
• Authors: Jinsheng Ba, Yuancheng Jiang, Manuel Rigger,
• Abstract summary: We propose Metamorphic Coverage (MC), a coverage metric that examines the distinct code executed by pairs of test inputs.<n>MC is 4x more sensitive than line coverage in distinguishing testing methods' effectiveness.<n>MC significantly outperforms code coverage, by finding 41% more bugs.
• Score: 10.456881328982584
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Metamorphic testing is a widely used methodology that examines an expected relation between pairs of executions to automatically find bugs, such as correctness bugs. We found that code coverage cannot accurately measure the extent to which code is validated and mutation testing is computationally expensive for evaluating metamorphic testing methods. In this work, we propose Metamorphic Coverage (MC), a coverage metric that examines the distinct code executed by pairs of test inputs within metamorphic testing. Our intuition is that, typically, a bug can be observed if the corresponding code is executed when executing either test input but not the other one, so covering more differential code covered by pairs of test inputs might be more likely to expose bugs. While most metamorphic testing methods have been based on this general intuition, our work defines and systematically evaluates MC on five widely used metamorphic testing methods for testing database engines, compilers, and constraint solvers. The code measured by MC overlaps with the bug-fix locations of 50 of 64 bugs found by metamorphic testing methods, and MC has a stronger positive correlation with bug numbers than line coverage. MC is 4x more sensitive than line coverage in distinguishing testing methods' effectiveness, and the average value of MC is 6x smaller than line coverage while still capturing the part of the program that is being tested. MC required 359x less time than mutation testing. Based on a case study for an automated database system testing approach, we demonstrate that when used for feedback guidance, MC significantly outperforms code coverage, by finding 41\% more bugs. Consequently, this work might have broad applications for assessing metamorphic testing methods and improving test-case generation.

Related papers

• Assertion-Aware Test Code Summarization with Large Language Models [0.0]
  Unit tests often lack concise summaries that convey test intent.<n>This paper presents a new benchmark of 91 real-world Java test cases paired with developer-written summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T04:58:32Z)
• ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases [58.411135609139855]
  "Shortcuts" to complete tasks pose significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models.<n>We introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases.<n>As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T06:58:32Z)
• How Many Code and Test Cases Are Enough? Evaluating Test Cases Generation from a Binary-Matrix Perspective [51.30005925128432]
  evaluating test cases automatically generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical yet challenging task.<n>Existing benchmarks suffer from high computational costs, score inflation, and a bias towards trivial bugs over rare, critical faults.<n>We introduce a framework that formalizes benchmark construction as finding an optimal diagnostic basis in a binary code-test matrix.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T18:29:24Z)
• Impact of Code Context and Prompting Strategies on Automated Unit Test Generation with Modern General-Purpose Large Language Models [0.0]
  Generative AI is gaining increasing attention in software engineering.<n>Unit tests constitute the majority of test cases and are often schematic.<n>This paper investigates the impact of code context and prompting strategies on the quality and adequacy of unit tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T11:23:17Z)
• CLOVER: A Test Case Generation Benchmark with Coverage, Long-Context, and Verification [71.34070740261072]
  This paper presents a benchmark, CLOVER, to evaluate models' capabilities in generating and completing test cases.<n>The benchmark is containerized for code execution across tasks, and we will release the code, data, and construction methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T21:42:56Z)
• TestGenEval: A Real World Unit Test Generation and Test Completion Benchmark [24.14654309612826]
  TestGenEval comprises 68,647 tests from 1,210 code and test file pairs across 11 well-maintained Python repositories.<n>It covers initial tests authoring, test suite completion, and code coverage improvements.<n>We evaluate several popular models, with sizes ranging from 7B to 405B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T14:47:05Z)
• GPT-HateCheck: Can LLMs Write Better Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection? [50.53312866647302]
  HateCheck is a suite for testing fine-grained model functionalities on synthesized data. We propose GPT-HateCheck, a framework to generate more diverse and realistic functional tests from scratch. Crowd-sourced annotation demonstrates that the generated test cases are of high quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T10:02:01Z)
• Observation-based unit test generation at Meta [52.4716552057909]
  TestGen automatically generates unit tests, carved from serialized observations of complex objects, observed during app execution. TestGen has landed 518 tests into production, which have been executed 9,617,349 times in continuous integration, finding 5,702 faults. Our evaluation reveals that, when carving its observations from 4,361 reliable end-to-end tests, TestGen was able to generate tests for at least 86% of the classes covered by end-to-end tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T00:34:39Z)
• Automatic Generation of Test Cases based on Bug Reports: a Feasibility Study with Large Language Models [4.318319522015101]
  Existing approaches produce test cases that either can be qualified as simple (e.g. unit tests) or that require precise specifications. Most testing procedures still rely on test cases written by humans to form test suites. We investigate the feasibility of performing this generation by leveraging large language models (LLMs) and using bug reports as inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T05:30:12Z)
• 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)
• Domain Adaptation for Code Model-based Unit Test Case Generation [7.147408628963976]
  We leverage Transformer-based code models to generate unit tests with the help of Domain Adaptation (DA) at a project level. We show that tests generated using DA can increase the line coverage by 18.62%, 19.88%, and 18.02% and mutation score by 16.45%, 16.01%, and 12.99%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T20:48:50Z)
• CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests [49.622590050797236]
  We explore the use of pre-trained language models to automatically generate test cases. CodeT executes the code solutions using the generated test cases, and then chooses the best solution. We evaluate CodeT on five different pre-trained models with both HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-21T10:18:37Z)
• Noisy Adaptive Group Testing using Bayesian Sequential Experimental Design [63.48989885374238]
  When the infection prevalence of a disease is low, Dorfman showed 80 years ago that testing groups of people can prove more efficient than testing people individually. Our goal in this paper is to propose new group testing algorithms that can operate in a noisy setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-26T23:41:33Z)

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.