ArticleMethodsX2026
Graph neural network-based mutation-aware regression test ordering using code dependency graphs and execution traces.
Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mutation-aware test prioritisation system in this paper uses Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to combine static program structure, dynamic execution traces, and mutation coverage into a hybrid graph representation to enhance regression testing. The framework embeds higher-order dependencies in test cases using GCN, GAT, and GraphSAGE variations and ranks them using a multi-objective optimisation function that balances fault detection, execution cost, and mutation coverage. On benchmark datasets like Defects4J and ManySStuBs4J, the proposed approach consistently outperforms traditional baselines (coverage-based APFD = 72.4 %, cost-based = 74.5 %) and ML baselines (LSTM = 80.1 %, RL = 82.7 %), achieving an average APFD of 88.9 % and mutation score of 84.6 % with a 16.1-second execution overhead. Statistical tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.