Syntactic Versus Semantic Similarity of Artificial and Real Faults in Mutation Testing Studies

Fault seeding is typically used in empirical studies to evaluate and compare test techniques. Central to these techniques lies the hypothesis that artificially seeded faults involve some form of realistic properties and thus provide realistic experimental results. In an attempt to strengthen realism, a recent line of research uses machine learning techniques, such as deep learning and Natural Language Processing, to seed faults that look like (syntactically) real ones, implying that fault realism is related to syntactic similarity. This raises the question of whether seeding syntactically similar faults indeed results in semantically similar faults and, more generally whether syntactically dissimilar faults are far away (semantically) from the real ones. We answer this question by employing 4 state-of-the-art fault-seeding techniques (PiTest - a popular mutation testing tool, IBIR - a tool with manually crafted fault patterns, DeepMutation - a learning-based fault seeded framework and $\mu$BERT - a mutation testing tool based on the pre-trained language model CodeBERT) that operate in a fundamentally different way, and demonstrate that syntactic similarity does not reflect semantic similarity. We also show that 65.11%, 76.44%, 61.39% and 9.76% of the real faults of Defects4J V2 are semantically resembled by PiTest, IBIR, $\mu$BERT and DeepMutation faults, respectively.