Cited by 150Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering Research

Testing scientific software: A systematic literature review

Open access
Kanewala, Upulee, Bieman, James M.·2014·Information and Software Technology

Abstract

Context Scientific software plays an important role in critical decision making, for example making weather predictions based on climate models, and computation of evidence for research publications. Recently, scientists have had to retract publications due to errors caused by software faults. Systematic testing can identify such faults in code.Objective This study aims to identify specific challenges, proposed solutions, and unsolved problems faced when testing scientific software.Method We conducted a systematic literature survey to identify and analyze relevant literature. We identified 62 studies that provided relevant information about testing scientific software.Results We found that challenges faced when testing scientific software fall into two main categories: (1) testing challenges that occur due to characteristics of scientific software such as oracle problems and (2) testing challenges that occur due to cultural differences between scientists and the software engineering community such as viewing the code and the model that it implements as inseparable entities. In addition, we identified methods to potentially overcome these challenges and their limitations. Finally we describe unsolved challenges and how software engineering researchers and practitioners can help to overcome them.Conclusions Scientific software presents special challenges for testing. Specifically, cultural differences between scientist developers and software engineers, along with the characteristics of the scientific software make testing more difficult. Existing techniques such as code clone detection can help to improve the testing process. Software engineers should consider special challenges posed by scientific software such as oracle problems when developing testing techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.05.006

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [35]Kanewala U Bieman JM Techniques for testing scientific programs without an oracle 2013 Proc. 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. IEEE 48 57
  2. [38]Kelly D Sanders R Assessing the quality of scientific software 2008 First International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering
  3. [52]Morris C Some lessons learned reviewing scientific code Proc 2008 First International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering
  4. [65]Sanders R Kelly D The challenge of testing scientific software 2008 7 Proceedings Conference for the Association for Software Testing (CAST) 30 36

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kanewala, U., & Bieman, J. M.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kanewala, Upulee
Venue
Information and Software Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1219-1232
ISSN
0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017425457
Cited by
150
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information and Software Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM096192)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
research software, software testing, oracle problem, software defects, publication retraction, code clone detection, climate models, software engineering challenges

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review