Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Mariet Kurtz

dblp:183/8614 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
mutation testing
0.212016
Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants · SIGSOFT FSE 2016
Software testing › mutation testing
selective mutation
0.212016
Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants · SIGSOFT FSE 2016
Software testing › mutation testing
mutation operators
0.112016
Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants · SIGSOFT FSE 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

empirical evaluation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Analyzing the validity of selective mutation with dominator mutants
abstract
Various forms of selective mutation testing have long been accepted as valid approximations to full mutation testing. This paper presents counterevidence to traditional selective mutation. The recent development of dominator mutants and minimal mutation analysis lets us analyze selective mutation without the noise introduced by the redundancy inherent in traditional mutation. We then exhaustively evaluate all small sets of mutation operators for the Proteum mutation system and determine dominator mutation scores and required work for each of these sets on an empirical test bed. The results show that all possible selective mutation approaches have poor dominator mutation scores on at least some of these programs. This suggests that to achieve high performance with respect to full mutation analysis, selective approaches will have to become more sophisticated, possibly by choosing mutants based on the specifics of the artifact under test, that is, specialized selective mutation.
Bob Kurtz, Paul Ammann, A. Jefferson Offutt, Márcio Eduardo Delamaro, Mariet Kurtz, Nida Gökçe
SIGSOFT FSE5