Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Efficient Mutation Testing via Pre-Trained Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2301.03543 v1 pith:6BYWSMMD submitted 2023-01-09 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords testingmutationfaultspitestbertabilitymodelsreveal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Mutation testing is an established fault-based testing technique. It operates by seeding faults into the programs under test and asking developers to write tests that reveal these faults. These tests have the potential to reveal a large number of faults -- those that couple with the seeded ones -- and thus are deemed important. To this end, mutation testing should seed faults that are both "natural" in a sense easily understood by developers and strong (have high chances to reveal faults). To achieve this we propose using pre-trained generative language models (i.e. CodeBERT) that have the ability to produce developer-like code that operates similarly, but not exactly, as the target code. This means that the models have the ability to seed natural faults, thereby offering opportunities to perform mutation testing. We realise this idea by implementing $\mu$BERT, a mutation testing technique that performs mutation testing using CodeBert and empirically evaluated it using 689 faulty program versions. Our results show that the fault revelation ability of $\mu$BERT is higher than that of a state-of-the-art mutation testing (PiTest), yielding tests that have up to 17% higher fault detection potential than that of PiTest. Moreover, we observe that $\mu$BERT can complement PiTest, being able to detect 47 bugs missed by PiTest, while at the same time, PiTest can find 13 bugs missed by $\mu$BERT.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Intent-Based Mutation Testing: From Naturally Written Programming Intents to Mutants

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LLM-driven mutation of natural-language programming intents produces complex, diverse code mutants that complement traditional syntax-based mutation testing on 29 programs.

  2. Round-Trip Mutation Testing: Translating Code to Natural Language Intent and back

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    LLM code↔intent round-trips yield diverse mutants that, at a 4-test budget, detect about four times more real BugsInPy faults than traditional mutation operators.

Pith tools