Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Implementing and comparing challengers to popular multi-objective algorithms for unit test cases generation
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
2023 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

The topic of multi-objective algorithms has been researched for many years, where hundreds of multi-objective algorithms have been developed. With the field of search-based software engineering attracting use-cases, more research on which algorithms are fitting the area is still lacking. Comparing algorithms is key to fully understand what properties of multi-objective algorithms can bring benefit to an application area. In this case, search-based software testing. Three multi-objective algorithms—AGE-II, SIBEA and MOEA/D—are selected for implementation in the Evosuite tool to compare against the two popular algorithms NSGA-II and SPEA2, together with a random-search baseline. The algorithms create test cases for 100 randomly selected Java classes in the SF100 benchmark suite over a maximum of 1000 generations. The objectives of the algorithms are to maximize four coverage criteria—banch, line, method, and statement. The benchmarking shows that SPEA2 completes themost goals on average at 67.04%, also having the most stable results at ±20.28 goals for the ten executions. Tests generated by the random-search baseline has the highest branch, line and statement coverage, with NSGA-II generating tests with the best method coverage. Neither AGE-II or SIBEA could compete with the algorithms already implemented in Evosuite. The MOEA/D implementation could not be completed. More implementations and benchmarks of multi-objective algorithms are needed to find concrete links between technique to goals and coverage amount, especially surrounding the random-search baseline being a top performer.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2023. , p. 23
Keywords [en]
multi-objective, evosuite, genetic, algorithm
National Category
Software Engineering Computer Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-25092OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-25092DiVA, id: diva2:1778465
Subject / course
PA1445 Kandidatkurs i Programvaruteknik
Educational program
PAGPT Software Engineering
Presentation
2023-05-30, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Blekinge, 13:50 (English)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2023-07-02 Created: 2023-07-02 Last updated: 2023-07-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Implementing and comparing challengers to popular multi-objective algorithms for unit test cases generation(249 kB)52 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 249 kBChecksum SHA-512
a7b9870b4420a6af1698cde8d33d47a75a9922450e493b9be4f4d8e124e85d67b0f91c1d27b043aa36c14bd3880efc86b3d0d94bb31eebd8af0013e915ef0c4b
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindfors, Elias
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Software EngineeringComputer Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 52 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf