Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We study the relative efficiencies of the random and systematic approaches to automated software testing. Using a simple but realistic set of assumptions, we propose a general model for software testing and define sampling strategies for random (R) and systematic (S 0 ) testing, where each sampling is associated with a sampling cost: 1 and c units of time, respectively. The two most important goals of software testing are: (i) achieving in minimal time a given degree of confidence x in a program's correctness and (ii) discovering a maximal number of errors within a given time bound n̂. For both (i) and (ii), we show that there exists a bound on c beyond which R performs better than S 0 on the average. Moreover for (i), this bound depends asymptotically only on x. We also show that the efficiency of R can be fitted to the exponential curve. Using these results we design a hybrid strategy H that starts with R and switches to S 0 when S 0 is expected to discover more errors per unit time. In our experiments we find that H performs similarly or better than the most efficient of both and that S 0 may need to be significantly faster than our bounds suggest to retain efficiency over R.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Böhme et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: