With the ever-increasing use of web APIs in modern-day applications, it is becoming more important to test the system as a whole. In the last decade, tools and approaches have been proposed to automate the creation of system-level test cases for thes
e APIs using evolutionary algorithms (EAs). One of the limiting factors of EAs is that the genetic operators (crossover and mutation) are fully randomized, potentially breaking promising patterns in the sequences of API requests discovered during the search. Breaking these patterns has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the test case generation process. To address this limitation, this paper proposes a new approach that uses agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) to infer a linkage tree model, which captures, replicates, and preserves these patterns in new test cases. We evaluate our approach, called LT-MOSA, by performing an empirical study on 7 real-world benchmark applications w.r.t. branch coverage and real-fault detection capability. We also compare LT-MOSA with the two existing state-of-the-art white-box techniques (MIO, MOSA) for REST API testing. Our results show that LT-MOSA achieves a statistically significant increase in test target coverage (i.e., lines and branches) compared to MIO and MOSA in 4 and 5 out of 7 applications, respectively. Furthermore, LT-MOSA discovers 27 and 18 unique real-faults that are left undetected by MIO and MOSA, respectively.
Mutation testing is a well-established technique for assessing a test suites quality by injecting artificial faults into production code. In recent years, mutation testing has been extended to machine learning (ML) systems, and deep learning (DL) in
particular; researchers have proposed approaches, tools, and statistically sound heuristics to determine whether mutants in DL systems are killed or not. However, as we will argue in this work, questions can be raised to what extent currently used mutation testing techniques in DL are actually in line with the classical interpretation of mutation testing. We observe that ML model development resembles a test-driven development (TDD) process, in which a training algorithm (`programmer) generates a model (program) that fits the data points (test data) to labels (implicit assertions), up to a certain threshold. However, considering proposed mutation testing techniques for ML systems under this TDD metaphor, in current approaches, the distinction between production and test code is blurry, and the realism of mutation operators can be challenged. We also consider the fundamental hypotheses underlying classical mutation testing: the competent programmer hypothesis and coupling effect hypothesis. As we will illustrate, these hypotheses do not trivially translate to ML system development, and more conscious and explicit scoping and concept mapping will be needed to truly draw parallels. Based on our observations, we propose several action points for better alignment of mutation testing techniques for ML with paradigms and vocabularies of classical mutation testing.
Machine learning (ML) has been widely used in the literature to automate software engineering tasks. However, ML outcomes may be sensitive to randomization in data sampling mechanisms and learning procedures. To understand whether and how researchers
in SE address these threats, we surveyed 45 recent papers related to three predictive tasks: defect prediction (DP), predictive mutation testing (PMT), and code smell detection (CSD). We found that less than 50% of the surveyed papers address the threats related to randomized data sampling (via multiple repetitions); only 8% of the papers address the random nature of ML; and parameter values are rarely reported (only 18% of the papers). To assess the severity of these threats, we conducted an empirical study using 26 real-world datasets commonly considered for the three predictive tasks of interest, considering eight common supervised ML classifiers. We show that different data resamplings for 10-fold cross-validation lead to extreme variability in observed performance results. Furthermore, randomized ML methods also show non-negligible variability for different choices of random seeds. More worryingly, performance and variability are inconsistent for different implementations of the conceptually same ML method in different libraries, as also shown through multi-dataset pairwise comparison. To cope with these critical threats, we provide practical guidelines on how to validate, assess, and report the results of predictive methods.
