Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Intuition is often not a good guide to know which testing strategies will work best. There is no substitute for experimental analysis based on objective criteria: how many faults a strategy finds, and how fast. "Random" testing is an example of an idea that intuitively seems simplistic or even dumb, but when assessed through such criteria can yield better results than seemingly smarter strategies. The efficiency of random testing is improved if the generated inputs are evenly spread across the input domain. This is the idea of Adaptive Random Testing (ART).
Ciupa et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: