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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.996017 · Cited by 50,053
MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition
Zhang, Q., & Li, H. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2007.892759 · Cited by 10,069
Fraser, G., & Arcuri, A. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2012.14 · Cited by 586
JCrasher: an automatic robustness tester for Java
Csallner, C., & Smaragdakis, Y. (2004) · Software: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.602 · Cited by 426
Cited by
An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation
Schäfer, M., Nadi, S., Eghbali, A., & Tip, F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3334955 · Cited by 431
“Their results show that, on most of their target 27 Python projects, their proposed technique, C ODA M OSA , outperforms the baseline search-based technique, Pynguin’s implementation of M OSA [64], as well as using only Codex.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialCodaMosa: Escaping Coverage Plateaus in Test Generation with Pre-trained Large Language Models
Lemieux, C., Inala, J. P., Lahiri, S. K., & Sen, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00085 · Cited by 306
Effective test generation using pre-trained Large Language Models and mutation testing
Dakhel, A. M., Nikanjam, A., Majdinasab, V., Khomh, F., & Desmarais, M. C. (2024) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107468 · Cited by 157
Fahmy, H., Pastore, F., Briand, L., & Stifter, T. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3569935 · Cited by 17
Hu, X., Niu, F., Chen, J., Zhou, X., Zhang, J., He, J., Xia, X., & Lo, D. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3786771 · Cited by 15
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
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.