A BRIEF SURVEY ON SYMBOLIC EXECUTION TEST-SELECTION TECHNIQUES

Authors

  • Nivethithaa KK Sri Ramakrishna College of Arts and Science for Women Tamil Nadu, India
  • Krishnapriya V Sri Ramakrishna College of Arts and Science for Women Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26438/ijcse/v6si8.8185

Keywords:

Symbolic execution, testing and debugging, Parallel symbolic execution, AEG

Abstract

Symbolic execution techniques decrease the cost of path redundancy by choosing a separation of an existing test suite to use in retesting a customized program. Over the history, Eliminating Path Redundancy via Postconditioned Symbolic Execution techniques has been described in the literature. This paper aims to present a brief survey on symbolic executions in black-box and white-box regression testing under the Software testing and learning techniques that are in use in today's software engineering of verification and validation tasks. Number of comparative study has been performed to evaluate the performance of predictive accuracy on the test cases and the outcome discloses that Bidirectional Symbolic Analysis for Effective Branch Testing method outperforms having better performance other predictive methods are not performing well

References

[1] J.Jaar, A. E. Santosa, and R. Voicu. An interpolation method for clp traversal. In CP, 2009.

[2] K. L. McMillan. Lazy annotation for program testing and verification. In CAV, 2010.

[3] CADAR, C., DUNBAR, D., AND ENGLER, D. KLEE: Unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex sys tems programs. In Proc. of Symp. on Operating Systems Design and Impl (OSDI) (2008).

[4] M. Staats and C. S. Pasareanu, “Parallel symbolic execution for structural test generation,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Softw. Testing Anal., 2010, pp. 183–194.

[5] T. Avgerinos, S. K. Cha, B. L. T. Hao, and D. Brumley, “AEG: Automatic exploit generation,” in Proc. USENIX Symp. Netw. Distrib. Syst. Secur., Feb. 2011, pp. 283–300.

[6] D.-H. Chu and J. Jaffar, “A complete method for symmetry reduction in safety verification,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Aided Verification, 2012, pp. 616–633.

[7] E. Bounimova, P. Godefroid, and D. A. Molnar, “Billions and billions of constraints: Whitebox fuzz testing in production,” in Proc. 35th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., 2013, pp. 122–131.

[8] D. Chu, J. Jaffar, and V. Murali, “Lazy symbolic execution for enhanced learning,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Runtime Verification, 2014, pp. 323–339.

[9] D. A. Ramos and D. R. Engler, “Under-constrained symbolic execution: Correctness checking for real code,” in Proc. 24th USENIX Secur. Symp., 2015, pp. 49–64.

[10] M. Baluda, G. Denaro, and M. Pezze, “Bidirectional symbolic analysis for effective branch testing,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 403–426, May 2016.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-17
CITATION
DOI: 10.26438/ijcse/v6si8.8185
Published: 2025-11-17

How to Cite

[1]
K. Nivethithaa and V. Krishnapriya, “A BRIEF SURVEY ON SYMBOLIC EXECUTION TEST-SELECTION TECHNIQUES”, Int. J. Comp. Sci. Eng., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 81–85, Nov. 2025.

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 8 (2018): IJCSE Special Issue October Edition

Section

Survey Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors contributing to this journal agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear.