Papers › Using causal inference and Bayesian statistics to explain the capability of a test...
Using causal inference and Bayesian statistics to explain the capability of a test suite in exposing software faults
Alireza Aghamohammadi, Seyed-Hassan Mirian-Hosseinabadi
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Test effectiveness refers to the capability of a test suite in exposing faults in software. It is crucial to be aware of factors that influence this capability. We aim at inferring the causal relationship between the two factors (i.e., Cover/Exec) and the capability of a test suite to expose and discover faults in software. Cover refers to the number of distinct test cases covering the statement and Exec equals the number of times a test suite executes a statement. We analyzed 459166 software faults from {12} Java programs. Bayesian statistics along with the back-door criterion was exploited for the purpose of causal inference. Furthermore, we examined the common pitfall measuring association, the mixture of causal and noncausal relationships, instead of causal association. The results show that Cover is of more causal association as against \textit{Exec}, and the causal association and noncausal one for those variables are statistically different. Software developers could exploit the results to design and write more effective test cases, which lead to discovering more bugs hidden in software.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections