Researcher profile

Kai Petersen

Kai Petersen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Lessons learned from replicating a study on information-retrieval based test case prioritization

Objective: In this study, we aim to replicate an artefact-based study on software testing to address the gap. We focus on (a) providing a step by step guide of the replication, reflecting on challenges when replicating artefact-based testing research, (b) Evaluating the replicated study concerning its validity and robustness of the findings. Method: We replicate a test case prioritization technique by Kwon et al. We replicated the original study using four programs, two from the original study and two new programs. The replication study was implemented using Python to support future replications. Results: Various general factors facilitating replications are identified, such as: (1) the importance of documentation; (2) the need of assistance from the original authors; (3) issues in the maintenance of open source repositories (e.g., concerning needed software dependencies); (4) availability of scripts. We also raised several observations specific to the study and its context, such as insights from using different mutation tools and strategies for mutant generation. Conclusion: We conclude that the study by Kwon et al. is replicable for small and medium programs and could be automated to facilitate software practitioners, given the availability of required information.

preprint2015arXiv

Tester Interactivity makes a Difference in Search-Based Software Testing: A Controlled Experiment

Context: Search-based software testing promises to provide users with the ability to generate high-quality test cases, and hence increase product quality, with a minimal increase in the time and effort required. One result that emerged out of a previous study to investigate the application of search-based software testing (SBST) in an industrial setting was the development of the Interactive Search-Based Software Testing (ISBST) system. ISBST allows users to interact with the underlying SBST system, guiding the search and assessing the results. An industrial evaluation indicated that the ISBST system could find test cases that are not created by testers employing manual techniques. The validity of the evaluation was threatened, however, by the low number of participants. Objective: This paper presents a follow-up study, to provide a more rigorous evaluation of the ISBST system. Method: To assess the ISBST system a two-way crossover controlled experiment was conducted with 58 students taking a Verification and Validation course. The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is used to assess the workload experienced by the participants in the experiment. Results: The experimental results validated the hypothesis that the ISBST system generates test cases that are not found by the same participants employing manual testing techniques. A follow-up laboratory experiment also investigates the importance of interaction in obtaining the results. In addition to this main result, the subjective workload was assessed for each participant by means of the NASA-TLX tool. The evaluation showed that, while the ISBST system required more effort from the participants, they achieved the same performance. Conclusions: The paper provides evidence that the ISBST system develops test cases that are not found by manual techniques, and that interaction plays an important role in achieving that result.