Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 352

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Test Case Generation as a Many-Objective Optimisation Problem with Dynamic Selection of the Targets

Open access
Panichella, Annibale, Kifetew, Fitsum Meshesha, Tonella, Paolo·2018·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

The test case generation is intrinsically a multi-objective problem, since the goal is covering multiple test targets (e.g., branches). Existing search-based approaches either consider one target at a time or aggregate all targets into a single fitness function (whole-suite approach). Multi and many-objective optimisation algorithms (MOAs) have never been applied to this problem, because existing algorithms do not scale to the number of coverage objectives that are typically found in real-world software. In addition, the final goal for MOAs is to find alternative trade-off solutions in the objective space, while in test generation the interesting solutions are only those test cases covering one or more uncovered targets. In this paper, we present Dynamic Many-Objective Sorting Algorithm (DynaMOSA), a novel many-objective solver specifically designed to address the test case generation problem in the context of coverage testing. DynaMOSA extends our previous many-objective technique Many-Objective Sorting Algorithm (MOSA) with dynamic selection of the coverage targets based on the control dependency hierarchy. Such extension makes the approach more effective and efficient in case of limited search budget. We carried out an empirical study on 346 Java classes using three coverage criteria (i.e., statement, branch, and strong mutation coverage) to assess the performance of DynaMOSA with respect to the whole-suite approach (WS), its archive-based variant (WSA) and MOSA. The results show that DynaMOSA outperforms WSA in 28 percent of the classes for branch coverage (+8 percent more coverage on average) and in 27 percent of the classes for mutation coverage (+11 percent more killed mutants on average). It outperforms WS in 51 percent of the classes for statement coverage, leading to +11 percent more coverage on average. Moreover, DynaMOSA outperforms its predecessor MOSA for all the three coverage criteria in 19 percent of the classes with +8 percent more code coverage on average.

Overview

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 · 10.1109/tse.2017.2663435

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 352

Metadata

Authors
Panichella, A., Kifetew, F. M., & Tonella, P.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2018-02-01
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
122-158
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
OpenAlex
W2586946380
Cited by
352
References
4
FWCI
92.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Test Case Generation as a Many-Objective Optimisation Problem with Dynamic Selection of the Targets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2017.2663435
The paper
Panichella, A., Kifetew, F. M., & Tonella, P. (2018). Automated Test Case Generation as a Many-Objective Optimisation Problem with Dynamic Selection of the Targets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2017.2663435

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.