{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,18]],"date-time":"2025-11-18T09:41:00Z","timestamp":1763458860452,"version":"3.45.0"},"reference-count":46,"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,7,19]],"date-time":"2016-07-19T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1468886400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.acm.org\/publications\/policies\/copyright_policy#Background"}],"funder":[{"name":"NASA Ames Research Center Cooperative Agreement","award":["NNA06CB21A"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["NNA06CB21A"]}]},{"name":"L-3 Titan Group"},{"name":"NSF","award":["CNS-0931931 and CNS-1035715"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["CNS-0931931 and CNS-1035715"]}]},{"name":"NASA IV&V Facility Contract","award":["NNG-05CB16C"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["NNG-05CB16C"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,22]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Test adequacy metrics defined over the structure of a program, such as Modified Condition and Decision Coverage (MC\/DC), are used to assess testing efforts. However, MC\/DC can be \u201ccheated\u201d by restructuring a program to make it easier to achieve the desired coverage. This is concerning, given the importance of MC\/DC in assessing the adequacy of test suites for critical systems domains. In this work, we have explored the impact of implementation structure on the efficacy of test suites satisfying the MC\/DC criterion using four real-world avionics systems.<\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>Our results demonstrate that test suites achieving MC\/DC over implementations with structurally complex Boolean expressions are generally larger and more effective than test suites achieving MC\/DC over functionally equivalent, but structurally simpler, implementations. Additionally, we found that test suites generated over simpler implementations achieve significantly lower MC\/DC and fault-finding effectiveness when applied to complex implementations, whereas test suites generated over the complex implementation still achieve high MC\/DC and attain high fault finding over the simpler implementation. By measuring MC\/DC over simple implementations, we can significantly reduce the cost of testing, but in doing so, we also reduce the effectiveness of the testing process. Thus, developers have an economic incentive to \u201ccheat\u201d the MC\/DC criterion, but this cheating leads to negative consequences. Accordingly, we recommend that organizations require MC\/DC over a structurally complex implementation for testing purposes to avoid these consequences.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1145\/2934672","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,7,19]],"date-time":"2016-07-19T07:59:22Z","timestamp":1468915162000},"page":"1-34","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":32,"title":["The Effect of Program and Model Structure on the Effectiveness of MC\/DC Test Adequacy Coverage"],"prefix":"10.1145","volume":"25","author":[{"given":"Gregory","family":"Gay","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of South Carolina, SC, USA"}]},{"given":"Ajitha","family":"Rajan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK"}]},{"given":"Matt","family":"Staats","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Google, Inc., Zurich, Switzerland"}]},{"given":"Michael","family":"Whalen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Minnesota, MN, USA"}]},{"given":"Mats P. E.","family":"Heimdahl","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Minnesota, MN, USA"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,7,19]]},"reference":[{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_1_1","DOI":"10.1109\/TSE.2006.83"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_2_1","DOI":"10.5555\/79060"},{"unstructured":"J. Chilenski. 2001. An Investigation of Three Forms of the Modified Condition Decision Coverage (MCDC) Criterion. Technical Report DOT\/FAA\/AR-01\/18. Office of Aviation Research Washington DC.","key":"e_1_2_1_3_1"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"J. J. Chilenski and S. P. Miller. 1994. Applicability of modified condition\/decision coverage to software testing. Software Engineering Journal 193--200.","key":"e_1_2_1_4_1","DOI":"10.1049\/sej.1994.0025"},{"volume-title":"Proceedings of the Digital Aviation Systems Conference (DASC\u201900)","author":"Dupuy A.","unstructured":"A. Dupuy and N. Leveson. 2000. An empirical evaluation of the MC\/DC coverage criterion on the HETE-2 satellite software. In Proceedings of the Digital Aviation Systems Conference (DASC\u201900). Philadelphia, PA.","key":"e_1_2_1_5_1"},{"volume-title":"Retrieved","year":"2004","unstructured":"Esterel-Technologies. 2004. SCADE Suite Product Description. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from http:\/\/www.esterel-technologies.com\/v2\/scadeSuiteForSafetyCriticalSoftwareDevelopment\/index.html.","key":"e_1_2_1_6_1"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_7_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2483760.2483774"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_8_1","volume-title":"Retrieved","author":"Gacek Andrew","year":"2015","unstructured":"Andrew Gacek. 2015. JKind - a Java implementation of the KIND model checker. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from https:\/\/github.com\/agacek."},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_9_1","DOI":"10.1109\/ICST.2013.64"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_10_1","DOI":"10.1145\/318774.318939"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_11_1","DOI":"10.1109\/TSE.2015.2436920"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_12_1","DOI":"10.1109\/TSE.2015.2421011"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_13_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2593833.2593837"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_14_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2483760.2483769"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_15_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2661136.2661157"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_16_1","DOI":"10.5555\/1626790"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_17_1","DOI":"10.5555\/530328"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_18_1","DOI":"10.5555\/886632"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_19_1","DOI":"10.1109\/DASC.2008.4702848"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_20_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2568225.2568271"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_21_1","DOI":"10.1145\/2635868.2635929"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"S. Kandl and R. Kirner. 2011. Error detection rate of MC\/DC for a case study from the automotive domain. Software Technologies for Embedded and Ubiquitous Systems 131--142.","key":"e_1_2_1_22_1","DOI":"10.5555\/1927882.1927902"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_23_1","DOI":"10.5555\/217720"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_24_1","volume-title":"Retrieved","author":"Documentation Mathworks","year":"2015","unstructured":"Mathworks Documentation. 2015. Types of Model Coverage. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from http:\/\/www.mathworks.com\/help\/slvnv\/ug\/types-of-model-coverage.html."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_25_1","volume-title":"Simulink. Retrieved","author":"Mathworks Inc.","year":"2015","unstructured":"Mathworks Inc. 2015. Mathworks Inc. Simulink. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from http:\/\/www.mathworks.com\/products\/simulink."},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_26_1","DOI":"10.1002\/stvr.v14:2"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_27_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1646353.1646372"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_28_1","DOI":"10.1109\/ESEM.2009.5315981"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_29_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1572272.1572280"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_30_1","DOI":"10.5555\/1408431"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"M. Pezz\u00e9 and M. Young. 2006. Software Test and Analysis: Process Principles and Techniques. John Wiley and Sons Hoboken NJ.","key":"e_1_2_1_31_1","DOI":"10.5555\/1076948"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_32_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1368088.1368111"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_33_1","DOI":"10.1109\/ECBS.2001.922409"},{"volume-title":"DO-178B: Software Considerations In Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA","author":"RTCA.","unstructured":"RTCA. 1992. DO-178B: Software Considerations In Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.), Washington, D.C.","key":"e_1_2_1_34_1"},{"volume-title":"Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA","author":"RTCA.","unstructured":"RTCA. 2012. RTCA\/DO-178C. Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.), Washington, D.C.","key":"e_1_2_1_35_1"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_36_1","DOI":"10.1109\/ASE.2015.86"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_37_1","DOI":"10.5555\/2337223.2337326"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_38_1","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-28872-2_28"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_39_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1985793.1985936"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_40_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1985793.1985847"},{"volume-title":"Proceedings of the 2nd NASA Formal Methods Symposium. NASA.","author":"Staats Matt","unstructured":"Matt Staats, Michael W. Whalen, Ajitha Rajan, and Mats P. E. Heimdahl. 2010. Coverage metrics for requirements-based testing: Evaluation of effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 2nd NASA Formal Methods Symposium. NASA.","key":"e_1_2_1_41_1"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_42_1","DOI":"10.1109\/43.851997"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_43_1","DOI":"10.5555\/2486788.2486803"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_44_1","DOI":"10.1145\/1146238.1146242"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_45_1","DOI":"10.2307\/3001968"},{"doi-asserted-by":"publisher","key":"e_1_2_1_46_1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jss.2005.05.030"}],"container-title":["ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/2934672","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/2934672","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/2934672","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,18]],"date-time":"2025-11-18T09:37:02Z","timestamp":1763458622000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/2934672"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,7,19]]},"references-count":46,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,8,22]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1145\/2934672"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2934672","relation":{},"ISSN":["1049-331X","1557-7392"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"1049-331X"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1557-7392"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,7,19]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2015-03-01","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2016-05-01","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2016-07-19","order":3,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}