Quality-Driven Selective Mutation for Deep Learning

Zaheed Ahmed, Emmanuel Charleson Dapaah, Philip Makedonski, Jens Grabowski · Apr 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Mutants support testing and debugging in two roles: (i) as test goals and (ii) as substitutes for real faults. Hard-to-kill mutants provide better guidance for test improvement, while realism is essential when mutants are used to simulate real bugs. Building on these roles, selective mutation for deep learning (DL) aims to reduce the cost of mutant generation and execution by choosing operator configurations that yield resistant and realistic mutants. However, the DL literature lacks a unified measure that captures both aspects. This study presents a probabilistic framework to quantify mutant quality along two complementary axes: resistance and realism. Resistance adapts the classical notion of hard-to-kill mutants to the DL setting using statistical killing probabilities, while realism is measured via the generalized Jaccard similarity between mutant and real-fault detectability patterns. The framework enables ranking and filtering of low-quality mutation-operator configurations without assuming a specific use case. We empirically evaluate the approach on four datasets of real DL faults. Three datasets (CleanML, DeepFD, and DeepLocalize) are used to estimate and select high-quality operator configurations, and the held-out defect4ML dataset is used for validation. Results show that quality-driven selection reduces the number of generated mutants by up to 55.6% while preserving typical levels of resistance and realism under baseline-aligned selection thresholds. These findings confirm that dual-objective selection can lower cost without compromising the usefulness of mutants for either role.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.