BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Gabin An

Gabin An appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Software Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
1topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

FDG: A Precise Measurement of Fault Diagnosability Gain of Test Cases

The performance of many Fault Localisation (FL) techniques directly depends on the quality of the used test suites. Consequently, it is extremely useful to be able to precisely measure how much diagnostic power each test case can introduce when added to a test suite used for FL. Such a measure can help us not only to prioritise and select test cases to be used for FL, but also to effectively augment test suites that are too weak to be used with FL techniques. We propose FDG, a new measure of Fault Diagnosability Gain for individual test cases. The design of FDG is based on our analysis of existing metrics that are designed to prioritise test cases for better FL. Unlike other metrics, FDG exploits the ongoing FL results to emphasise the parts of the program for which more information is needed. Our evaluation of FDG with Defects4J shows that it can successfully help the augmentation of test suites for better FL. When given only a few failing test cases (2.3 test cases on average), FDG can effectively augment the given test suite by prioritising the test cases generated automatically by EvoSuite: the augmentation can improve the acc@1 and acc@10 of the FL results by 11.6x and 2.2x on average, after requiring only ten human judgements on the correctness of the assertions EvoSuite generates.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Ahead of Time Mutation Based Fault Localisation using Statistical Inference

Mutation analysis can effectively capture the dependency between source code and test results. This has been exploited by Mutation Based Fault Localisation (MBFL) techniques. However, MBFL techniques suffer from the need to expend the high cost of mutation analysis after the observation of failures, which may present a challenge for its practical adoption. We introduce SIMFL (Statistical Inference for Mutation-based Fault Localisation), an MBFL technique that allows users to perform the mutation analysis in advance before a failure is observed, allowing the amortisation of the analysis cost. SIMFL uses mutants as artificial faults and aims to learn the failure patterns among test cases against different locations of mutations. Once a failure is observed, SIMFL requires either almost no or very small additional cost for analysis, depending on the used inference model. An empirical evaluation using Defects4J shows that SIMFL can successfully localise up to 113 out of 203 studied faults (55%) at the top, and 159 (78%) faults within the top five, significantly outperforming existing MBFL techniques while using the results of mutation analysis that has been undertaken before the test failure. The amortised cost of mutation analysis can be further reduced by mutation sampling: SIMFL retains 80% of its localisation accuracy at the top rank when using only 10% of generated mutants, compared to results obtained without sampling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access