Generating fake data is an essential dimension of modern software testing, as demonstrated by the number and significance of data faking libraries. Yet, developers of faking libraries cannot keep up with the wide range of data to be generated for different natural languages and domains. In this paper, we assess the ability of generative AI for generating test data in different domains. We design three types of prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs), which perform test data generation tasks at different levels of integrability: 1) raw test data generation, 2) synthesizing programs in a specific language that generate useful test data, and 3) producing programs that use state-of-the-art faker libraries. We evaluate our approach by prompting LLMs to generate test data for 11 domains. The results show that LLMs can successfully generate realistic test data generators in a wide range of domains at all three levels of integrability.
Automated test case generation has proven to be useful to reduce the usually high expenses of software testing. However, several studies have also noted the skepticism of testers regarding the comprehension of generated test suites when compared to manually designed ones. This fact suggests that involving testers in the test generation process could be helpful to increase their acceptance of automatically-produced test suites. In this paper, we propose incorporating interactive readability assessments made by a tester into EvoSuite, a widely-known evolutionary test generation tool. Our approach, InterEvo-TR, interacts with the tester at different moments during the search and shows different test cases covering the same coverage target for their subjective evaluation. The design of such an interactive approach involves a schedule of interaction, a method to diversify the selected targets, a plan to save and handle the readability values, and some mechanisms to customize the level of engagement in the revision, among other aspects. To analyze the potential and practicability of our proposal, we conduct a controlled experiment in which 39 participants, including academics, professional developers, and student collaborators, interact with InterEvo-TR. Our results show that the strategy to select and present intermediate results is effective for the purpose of readability assessment. Furthermore, the participants' actions and responses to a questionnaire allowed us to analyze the aspects influencing test code readability and the benefits and limitations of an interactive approach in the context of test case generation, paving the way for future developments based on interactivity.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in processing both natural and programming languages, which have enabled various applications in software engineering, such as requirement engineering, code generation, and software testing. However, existing code generation benchmarks do not necessarily assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, especially for the subtle inconsistencies that may arise between code and its semantics described in natural language. In this paper, we propose a novel method to systematically assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, particularly focusing on subtle differences between code and its descriptions, by introducing code mutations to existing code generation datasets. Code mutations are small changes that alter the semantics of the original code, creating a mismatch with the natural language description. We apply different types of code mutations, such as operator replacement and statement deletion, to generate inconsistent code-description pairs. We then use these pairs to test the ability of LLMs to correctly detect the inconsistencies. We propose a new LLM testing method, called Mutation-based Consistency Testing (MCT), and conduct a case study on the two popular LLMs, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, using the state-of-the-art code generation benchmark, HumanEval-X, which consists of six programming languages (Python, C++, Java, Go, JavaScript, and Rust). We compare the performance of the LLMs across different types of code mutations and programming languages and analyze the results. We find that the LLMs show significant variation in their code understanding performance and that they have different strengths and weaknesses depending on the mutation type and language.
Synthetic data has numerous applications, including but not limited to software testing at scale, privacy-preserving data sharing to enable smoother collaboration between stakeholders, and data augmentation for analytical and machine learning tasks. Relational databases, which are commonly used by corporations, governments, and financial institutions, present unique challenges for synthetic data generation due to their complex structures. Existing synthetic relational database generation approaches often assume idealized scenarios, such as every table having a perfect primary key column without composite and potentially overlapping primary or foreign key constraints, and fail to account for the sequential nature of certain tables. In this paper, we propose incremental relational generator (IRG), that successfully handles these ubiquitous real-life situations. IRG ensures the preservation of relational schema integrity, offers a deep contextual understanding of relationships beyond direct ancestors and descendants, leverages the power of newly designed deep neural networks, and scales efficiently to handle larger datasets--a combination never achieved in previous works. Experiments on three open-source real-life relational datasets in different fields at different scales demonstrate IRG's advantage in maintaining the synthetic data's relational schema validity and data fidelity and utility.
Recently, machine and deep learning (ML/DL) algorithms have been increasingly adopted in many software systems. Due to their inductive nature, ensuring the quality of these systems remains a significant challenge for the research community. Unlike traditional software built deductively by writing explicit rules, ML/DL systems infer rules from training data. Recent research in ML/DL quality assurance has adapted concepts from traditional software testing, such as mutation testing, to improve reliability. However, it is unclear if these proposed testing techniques are adopted in practice, or if new testing strategies have emerged from real-world ML deployments. There is little empirical evidence about the testing strategies. To fill this gap, we perform the first fine-grained empirical study on ML testing in the wild to identify the ML properties being tested, the testing strategies, and their implementation throughout the ML workflow. We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand ML software testing practices. We analyzed test files and cases from 11 open-source ML/DL projects on GitHub. Using open coding, we manually examined the testing strategies, tested ML properties, and implemented testing methods to understand their practical application in building and releasing ML/DL software systems. Our findings reveal several key insights: 1.) The most common testing strategies, accounting for less than 40%, are Grey-box and White-box methods, such as Negative Testing, Oracle Approximation and Statistical Testing. 2.) A wide range of 17 ML properties are tested, out of which only 20% to 30% are frequently tested, including Consistency, Correctness}, and Efficiency. 3.) Bias and Fairness is more tested in Recommendation, while Security & Privacy is tested in Computer Vision (CV) systems, Application Platforms, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems.
This paper presents a detailed case study examining the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the construction of test cases within the context of software engineering. LLMs, characterized by their advanced natural language processing capabilities, are increasingly garnering attention as tools to automate and enhance various aspects of the software development life cycle. Leveraging a case study methodology, we systematically explore the integration of LLMs in the test case construction process, aiming to shed light on their practical efficacy, challenges encountered, and implications for software quality assurance. The study encompasses the selection of a representative software application, the formulation of test case construction methodologies employing LLMs, and the subsequent evaluation of outcomes. Through a blend of qualitative and quantitative analyses, this study assesses the impact of LLMs on test case comprehensiveness, accuracy, and efficiency. Additionally, delves into challenges such as model interpretability and adaptation to diverse software contexts. The findings from this case study contributes with nuanced insights into the practical utility of LLMs in the domain of test case construction, elucidating their potential benefits and limitations. By addressing real-world scenarios and complexities, this research aims to inform software practitioners and researchers alike about the tangible implications of incorporating LLMs into the software testing landscape, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of their role in optimizing the software development process.
While ChatGPT is a well-known artificial intelligence chatbot being used to answer human's questions, one may want to discover its potential in advancing software testing. We examine the capability of ChatGPT in advancing the intelligence of software testing through a case study on metamorphic testing (MT), a state-of-the-art software testing technique. We ask ChatGPT to generate candidates of metamorphic relations (MRs), which are basically necessary properties of the object program and which traditionally require human intelligence to identify. These MR candidates are then evaluated in terms of correctness by domain experts. We show that ChatGPT can be used to generate new correct MRs to test several software systems. Having said that, the majority of MR candidates are either defined vaguely or incorrect, especially for systems that have never been tested with MT. ChatGPT can be used to advance software testing intelligence by proposing MR candidates that can be later adopted for implementing tests; but human intelligence should still inevitably be involved to justify and rectify their correctness.
Frequent modifications of unit test cases are inevitable due to software's continuous underlying changes in source code, design, and requirements. Since manually maintaining software test suites is tedious, timely, and costly, automating the process of generation and maintenance of test units will significantly impact the effectiveness and efficiency of software testing processes. To this end, we propose an automated approach which exploits both structural and semantic properties of source code methods and test cases to recommend the most relevant and useful unit tests to the developers. The proposed approach initially trains a neural network to transform method-level source code, as well as unit tests, into distributed representations (embedded vectors) while preserving the importance of the structure in the code. Retrieving the semantic and structural properties of a given method, the approach computes cosine similarity between the method's embedding and the previously-embedded training instances. Further, according to the similarity scores between the embedding vectors, the model identifies the closest methods of embedding and the associated unit tests as the most similar recommendations. The results on the Methods2Test dataset showed that, while there is no guarantee to have similar relevant test cases for the group of similar methods, the proposed approach extracts the most similar existing test cases for a given method in the dataset, and evaluations show that recommended test cases decrease the developers' effort to generating expected test cases.
Software testing is a crucial aspect of software development, and the creation of high-quality tests that adhere to best practices is essential for effective maintenance. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity for code generation, including the automated creation of test cases. However, these LLMs are often trained on vast amounts of publicly available code, which may include test cases that do not adhere to best practices and may even contain test smells (anti-patterns). To address this issue, we propose a novel technique called Reinforcement Learning from Static Quality Metrics (RLSQM). To begin, we analyze the anti-patterns generated by the LLM and show that LLMs can generate undesirable test smells. Thus, we train specific reward models for each static quality metric, then utilize Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to train models for optimizing a single quality metric at a time. Furthermore, we amalgamate these rewards into a unified reward model aimed at capturing different best practices and quality aspects of tests. By comparing RL-trained models with those trained using supervised learning, we provide insights into how reliably utilize RL to improve test generation quality and into the effects of various training strategies. Our experimental results demonstrate that the RL-optimized model consistently generated high-quality test cases compared to the base LLM, improving the model by up to 21%, and successfully generates nearly 100% syntactically correct code. RLSQM also outperformed GPT-4 on four out of seven metrics. This represents a significant step towards enhancing the overall efficiency and reliability of software testing through Reinforcement Learning and static quality metrics. Our data are available at https://figshare.com/s/ded476c8d4c221222849.
The prevalence of software systems has become an integral part of modern-day living. Software usage has increased significantly, leading to its growth in both size and complexity. Consequently, software development is becoming a more time-consuming process. In an attempt to accelerate the development cycle, the testing phase is often neglected, leading to the deployment of flawed systems that can have significant implications on the users daily activities. This work presents TestLab, an intelligent automated software testing framework that attempts to gather a set of testing methods and automate them using Artificial Intelligence to allow continuous testing of software systems at multiple levels from different scopes, ranging from developers to end-users. The tool consists of three modules, each serving a distinct purpose. The first two modules aim to identify vulnerabilities from different perspectives, while the third module enhances traditional automated software testing by automatically generating test cases through source code analysis.
Motivated by the success of traditional software testing, numerous diversity measures have been proposed for testing deep neural networks (DNNs). In this study, we propose a shift in perspective, advocating for the consideration of DNN testing as directed testing problems rather than diversity-based testing tasks. We note that the objective of testing DNNs is specific and well-defined: identifying inputs that lead to misclassifications. Consequently, a more precise testing approach is to prioritize inputs with a higher potential to induce misclassifications, as opposed to emphasizing inputs that enhance "diversity." We derive six directed metrics for DNN testing. Furthermore, we conduct a careful analysis of the appropriate scope for each metric, as applying metrics beyond their intended scope could significantly diminish their effectiveness. Our evaluation demonstrates that (1) diversity metrics are particularly weak indicators for identifying buggy inputs resulting from small input perturbations, and (2) our directed metrics consistently outperform diversity metrics in revealing erroneous behaviors of DNNs across all scenarios.
The exponential growth of social media platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok, has revolutionized communication and content publication in human society. Users on these platforms can publish multimedia content that delivers information via the combination of text, audio, images, and video. Meanwhile, the multimedia content release facility has been increasingly exploited to propagate toxic content, such as hate speech, malicious advertisements, and pornography. To this end, content moderation software has been widely deployed on these platforms to detect and blocks toxic content. However, due to the complexity of content moderation models and the difficulty of understanding information across multiple modalities, existing content moderation software can fail to detect toxic content, which often leads to extremely negative impacts. We introduce Semantic Fusion, a general, effective methodology for validating multimedia content moderation software. Our key idea is to fuse two or more existing single-modal inputs (e.g., a textual sentence and an image) into a new input that combines the semantics of its ancestors in a novel manner and has toxic nature by construction. This fused input is then used for validating multimedia content moderation software. We realized Semantic Fusion as DUO, a practical content moderation software testing tool. In our evaluation, we employ DUO to test five commercial content moderation software and two state-of-the-art models against three kinds of toxic content. The results show that DUO achieves up to 100% error finding rate (EFR) when testing moderation software. In addition, we leverage the test cases generated by DUO to retrain the two models we explored, which largely improves model robustness while maintaining the accuracy on the original test set.
The advent of automation in particular Software Engineering (SE) tasks has transitioned from theory to reality. Numerous scholarly articles have documented the successful application of Artificial Intelligence to address issues in areas such as project management, modeling, testing, and development. A recent innovation is the introduction of ChatGPT, an ML-infused chatbot, touted as a resource proficient in generating programming codes and formulating software testing strategies for developers and testers respectively. Although there is speculation that AI-based computation can increase productivity and even substitute software engineers in software development, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to verify this. Moreover, despite the primary focus on enhancing the accuracy of AI systems, non-functional requirements including energy efficiency, vulnerability, fairness (i.e., human bias), and safety frequently receive insufficient attention. This paper posits that a comprehensive comparison of software engineers and AI-based solutions, considering various evaluation criteria, is pivotal in fostering human-machine collaboration, enhancing the reliability of AI-based methods, and understanding task suitability for humans or AI. Furthermore, it facilitates the effective implementation of cooperative work structures and human-in-the-loop processes. This paper conducts an empirical investigation, contrasting the performance of software engineers and AI systems, like ChatGPT, across different evaluation metrics. The empirical study includes a case of assessing ChatGPT-generated code versus code produced by developers and uploaded in Leetcode.
Recently, fine-tuning pre-trained code models such as CodeBERT on downstream tasks has achieved great success in many software testing and analysis tasks. While effective and prevalent, fine-tuning the pre-trained parameters incurs a large computational cost. In this paper, we conduct an extensive experimental study to explore what happens to layer-wise pre-trained representations and their encoded code knowledge during fine-tuning. We then propose efficient alternatives to fine-tune the large pre-trained code model based on the above findings. Our experimental study shows that (1) lexical, syntactic and structural properties of source code are encoded in the lower, intermediate, and higher layers, respectively, while the semantic property spans across the entire model. (2) The process of fine-tuning preserves most of the code properties. Specifically, the basic code properties captured by lower and intermediate layers are still preserved during fine-tuning. Furthermore, we find that only the representations of the top two layers change most during fine-tuning for various downstream tasks. (3) Based on the above findings, we propose Telly to efficiently fine-tune pre-trained code models via layer freezing. The extensive experimental results on five various downstream tasks demonstrate that training parameters and the corresponding time cost are greatly reduced, while performances are similar or better. Replication package including source code, datasets, and online Appendix is available at: \url{https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/Telly}.
The deep feedforward neural networks (DNNs) are increasingly deployed in socioeconomic critical decision support software systems. DNNs are exceptionally good at finding minimal, sufficient statistical patterns within their training data. Consequently, DNNs may learn to encode decisions -- amplifying existing biases or introducing new ones -- that may disadvantage protected individuals/groups and may stand to violate legal protections. While the existing search based software testing approaches have been effective in discovering fairness defects, they do not supplement these defects with debugging aids -- such as severity and causal explanations -- crucial to help developers triage and decide on the next course of action. Can we measure the severity of fairness defects in DNNs? Are these defects symptomatic of improper training or they merely reflect biases present in the training data? To answer such questions, we present DICE: an information-theoretic testing and debugging framework to discover and localize fairness defects in DNNs. The key goal of DICE is to assist software developers in triaging fairness defects by ordering them by their severity. Towards this goal, we quantify fairness in terms of protected information (in bits) used in decision making. A quantitative view of fairness defects not only helps in ordering these defects, our empirical evaluation shows that it improves the search efficiency due to resulting smoothness of the search space. Guided by the quantitative fairness, we present a causal debugging framework to localize inadequately trained layers and neurons responsible for fairness defects. Our experiments over ten DNNs, developed for socially critical tasks, show that DICE efficiently characterizes the amounts of discrimination, effectively generates discriminatory instances, and localizes layers/neurons with significant biases.
It is imperative to safeguard computer applications and information systems against the growing number of cyber-attacks. Automated software testing tools can be developed to quickly analyze many lines of code and detect vulnerabilities by generating function-specific testing data. This process draws similarities to the constrained adversarial examples generated by adversarial machine learning methods, so there could be significant benefits to the integration of these methods in testing tools to identify possible attack vectors. Therefore, this literature review is focused on the current state-of-the-art of constrained data generation approaches applied for adversarial learning and software testing, aiming to guide researchers and developers to enhance their software testing tools with adversarial testing methods and improve the resilience and robustness of their information systems. The found approaches were systematized, and the advantages and limitations of those specific for white-box, grey-box, and black-box testing were analyzed, identifying research gaps and opportunities to automate the testing tools with data generated by adversarial attacks.
Neural networks have complex structures, and thus it is hard to understand their inner workings and ensure correctness. To understand and debug convolutional neural networks (CNNs) we propose techniques for testing the channels of CNNs. We design FtGAN, an extension to GAN, that can generate test data with varying the intensity (i.e., sum of the neurons) of a channel of a target CNN. We also proposed a channel selection algorithm to find representative channels for testing. To efficiently inspect the target CNN's inference computations, we define unexpectedness score, which estimates how similar the inference computation of the test data is to that of the training data. We evaluated FtGAN with five public datasets and showed that our techniques successfully identify defective channels in five different CNN models.
With software systems becoming increasingly pervasive and autonomous, our ability to test for their quality is severely challenged. Many systems are called to operate in uncertain and highly-changing environment, not rarely required to make intelligent decisions by themselves. This easily results in an intractable state space to explore at testing time. The state-of-the-art techniques try to keep the pace, e.g., by augmenting the tester's intuition with some form of (explicit or implicit) learning from observations to search this space efficiently. For instance, they exploit historical data to drive the search (e.g., ML-driven testing) or the tests execution data itself (e.g., adaptive or search-based testing). Despite the indubitable advances, the need for smartening the search in such a huge space keeps to be pressing. We introduce Reasoning-Based Software Testing (RBST), a new way of thinking at the testing problem as a causal reasoning task. Compared to mere intuition-based or state-of-the-art learning-based strategies, we claim that causal reasoning more naturally emulates the process that a human would do to ''smartly" search the space. RBST aims to mimic and amplify, with the power of computation, this ability. The conceptual leap can pave the ground to a new trend of techniques, which can be variously instantiated from the proposed framework, by exploiting the numerous tools for causal discovery and inference. Preliminary results reported in this paper are promising.
Ongoing progress in computational intelligence (CI) has led to an increased desire to apply CI techniques for the purpose of improving software engineering processes, particularly software testing. Existing state-of-the-art automated software testing techniques focus on utilising search algorithms to discover input values that achieve high execution path coverage. These algorithms are trained on the same code that they intend to test, requiring instrumentation and lengthy search times to test each software component. This paper outlines a novel genetic programming framework, where the evolved solutions are not input values, but micro-programs that can repeatedly generate input values to efficiently explore a software component's input parameter domain. We also argue that our approach can be generalised such as to be applied to many different software systems, and is thus not specific to merely the particular software component on which it was trained.
Automation of test oracles is one of the most challenging facets of software testing, but remains comparatively less addressed compared to automated test input generation. Test oracles rely on a ground-truth that can distinguish between the correct and buggy behavior to determine whether a test fails (detects a bug) or passes. What makes the oracle problem challenging and undecidable is the assumption that the ground-truth should know the exact expected, correct, or buggy behavior. However, we argue that one can still build an accurate oracle without knowing the exact correct or buggy behavior, but how these two might differ. This paper presents SEER, a learning-based approach that in the absence of test assertions or other types of oracle, can determine whether a unit test passes or fails on a given method under test (MUT). To build the ground-truth, SEER jointly embeds unit tests and the implementation of MUTs into a unified vector space, in such a way that the neural representation of tests are similar to that of MUTs they pass on them, but dissimilar to MUTs they fail on them. The classifier built on top of this vector representation serves as the oracle to generate "fail" labels, when test inputs detect a bug in MUT or "pass" labels, otherwise. Our extensive experiments on applying SEER to more than 5K unit tests from a diverse set of open-source Java projects show that the produced oracle is (1) effective in predicting the fail or pass labels, achieving an overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 measure of 93%, 86%, 94%, and 90%, (2) generalizable, predicting the labels for the unit test of projects that were not in training or validation set with negligible performance drop, and (3) efficient, detecting the existence of bugs in only 6.5 milliseconds on average.