<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Practical Mutation Testing at Scale · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.11378/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.11378/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Practical Mutation Testing at Scale — mentioned by vlovich123</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40863423</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2102.11378:40863423</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 06:53:12 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; All in all, LLMs produced fewer equivalent mutants, mutants with higher fault detection potential, as well as higher coupling and semantic similarity with real faults. The problem with PIT and Major is that they don’t do profile guided mutation testing [0] which in theory would raise the detectability rate without a meaningful cost increase. Other works explore the use of GANs [1] which would probably be cheaper and likely as effective but not as sexy as LLMs. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.11378 [1] https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2303.07546&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.11378/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
