Mutation testing is vital for ensuring software quality. However, the presence of equivalent mutants is known to introduce redundant cost and bias issues, hindering the effectiveness of mutation testing in practical use. Although numerous equivalent mutant detection (EMD) techniques have been proposed, they exhibit limitations due to the scarcity of training data and challenges in generalizing to unseen mutants. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been extensively adopted in various code-related tasks and have shown superior performance by more accurately capturing program semantics. Yet the performance of LLMs in equivalent mutant detection remains largely unclear. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on 3,302 method-level Java mutant pairs to comprehensively investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of LLMs for equivalent mutant detection. Specifically, we assess the performance of LLMs compared to existing EMD techniques, examine the various strategies of LLMs, evaluate the orthogonality between EMD techniques, and measure the time overhead of training and inference. Our findings demonstrate that LLM-based techniques significantly outperform existing techniques (i.e., the average improvement of 35.69% in terms of F1-score), with the fine-tuned code embedding strategy being the most effective. Moreover, LLM-based techniques offer an excellent balance between cost (relatively low training and inference time) and effectiveness. Based on our findings, we further discuss the impact of model size and embedding quality, and provide several promising directions for future research. This work is the first to examine LLMs in equivalent mutant detection, affirming their effectiveness and efficiency.

Abstract Many test coverage metrics have been proposed to measure the deep neural network (DNN) testing effectiveness, including structural coverage and nonstructural coverage. These test coverage metrics are proposed based on the fundamental assumption: They are correlated with test effectiveness. However, the fundamental assumption is still not validated sufficiently and reasonably, which brings question on the usefulness of DNN test coverage. This paper conducted a revisiting study on the existing DNN test coverage from the test effectiveness perspective, to effectively validate the fundamental assumption. Here, we carefully considered the diversity of subjects, three test effectiveness criteria, and both typical and state‐of‐the‐art test coverage metrics. Different from all the existing studies that deliver negative conclusions on the usefulness of existing DNN test coverage, we identified some positive conclusions on their usefulness from the test effectiveness perspective. In particular, we found the complementary relationship between structural and nonstructural coverage and identified the practical usage scenarios and promising research directions for these existing test coverage metrics.