Equivalent mutants

Question

Equivalent mutants

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The topic is Equivalent mutants, a concept from mutation testing.
Option 1: 'Can't be covered' This suggests a claim about coverage of equivalent mutants. In mutation testing, coverage typically refers to executing tests that exercise code paths; however, an equivalent mutant behaves identically to the original program for all inputs, so no test input can distinguish it. Saying it 'can't be covered' misrepresents how coverage is measured and implies coverage properties that don’t align with the core idea of equivalence. 
Option 2: 'Can't be detected' This aligns with the standard definition of equivalent mutants: they perform identically to the original program for all possible inputs, so no test case can reveal a difference, making them undetectable by test suites. This statement captures the essence of the challenge posed by equivalent mutants. 
Option 3: 'Can be detected without assertions (raises exceptions)' This claim contradicts the fundamental property of equivalent mutants. If a mutant can be detected without assertions or by simply observing raised exceptions, it would indicate observable behavioral differences between the mutant and the original, which would violate the notion of equivalence. The term 'without assertions' adds a procedural slip, since detection requires observing behavioral outcomes, not a specific mechanism like assertions. 
Option 4: 'Will always be detected' This is incorrect because if a mutant is truly equivalent, no test will ever distinguish it from the original, so it cannot always be detected. Saying 'always detected' would imply a universal ability to reveal all equivalents, which is impossible in general since they are indistinguishable by construction. 
Putting the pieces together, the key idea is that an equivalent mutant cannot be distinguished from the original by any test case, hence the statement 'Can't be detected' correctly reflects the concept. The other options misstate coverage implications, the detection mechanism, or the fundamental property of equivalence, leading to incorrect conclusions about how equivalent mutants behave in mutation testing.

SOFT3202 COMP9202 (ND) Quiz 6

Equivalent mutants

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In mutation testing, what does it mean for mutant A to subsume mutant B? (see https://edstem.org/au/courses/20753/lessons/79799/slides/539235)

This question has been re-marked. Mutation analysis

Your tool changes the arithmetic operator in x = a + b to x = a - b. The mutant is then evaluated using your test suite. Why does mutation testing apply this kind of change?

Which one of the following statements about mutant subsumption is correct?

Coupling effect means that

Competent programmer hypothesis is another name for

What is the difference between traditional fault seeding and mutation analysis?

Mutation analysis

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler