Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Search-based software test data generation using evolutionary computation

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 1103.0125 v1 pith:34FEV7W2 submitted 2011-03-01 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords testtestingdataevolutionarysoftwareengineeringgenerationsearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Search-based Software Engineering has been utilized for a number of software engineering activities. One area where Search-Based Software Engineering has seen much application is test data generation. Evolutionary testing designates the use of metaheuristic search methods for test case generation. The search space is the input domain of the test object, with each individual or potential solution, being an encoded set of inputs to that test object. The fitness function is tailored to find test data for the type of test that is being undertaken. Evolutionary Testing (ET) uses optimizing search techniques such as evolutionary algorithms to generate test data. The effectiveness of GA-based testing system is compared with a Random testing system. For simple programs both testing systems work fine, but as the complexity of the program or the complexity of input domain grows, GA-based testing system significantly outperforms Random testing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quality Assessment of Python Tests Generated by Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comparative study of Python test suites generated by GPT-4o, Amazon Q, and LLama 3.3 found 151 execution errors and 512 test smells, with assertion failures and low-cohesion tests most common.

Pith tools