# Automatic Test Data Generation Using the Activity Diagram and Search-Based Technique
## 5 Experimental Results
**RQ4**: What is the interaction relationship between the test coverage and fault detection effectiveness of the adopted techniques and subject properties? In terms of fault detection effectiveness, the results indicate a remarkable relationship between the subject properties and adopted techniques. Among the experimental subjects, the Elevator system is peculiar and difficult to test due to its concurrency and complex behavior, and AutoTDGen managed to detect more of its faults than the other techniques. On the other hand, in terms of statement and branch coverage, the results showed no notable relationship between the performance of a technique and the properties of the subjects, though the small improvement attained by AutoTDGen in terms of the statement and branch coverage was in the Elevator system. Furthermore, the DFAAD and AutoTDGen performance on SC and BC was comparatively consistent across the subjects, whereas the EvoSuite performance varied from subject to subject depending on the subject properties. Specifically, EvoSuite achieved poor SC for Elevator and the best coverage for Coffee Maker. In summary, the reported results indicate that the concurrency, dynamicity, and complexity of the subjects are a good indicator of the adopted technique's capability for fault detection. However, unlike \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mutation** \\ **Operators** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **Mutants** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Elevator**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & _AutoTDGen_ & & _DFAAD_ & & & _EvoSuite_ & \\ \cline{2-10}  & & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** \\ \hline IM & 4 & 4 & 0 & **100** & 4 & 0 & **100** & 3 & 1 & 75 \\ \hline VMCM & 76 & 54 & 22 & **71** & 45 & 31 & 59 & 11 & 65 & 14 \\ \hline RVM & 45 & 39 & 6 & **87** & 34 & 11 & 76 & 16 & 29 & 35 \\ \hline
**MM** & 30 & 26 & 4 & **87** & 14 & 16 & 47 & 0 & 30 & 0 \\ \hline NCM & 70 & 69 & 1 & **99** & 62 & 8 & **89** & 18 & 43 & 26 \\ \hline INM & 1 & 1 & 0 & **100** & 1 & 0 & **100** & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline CBM & 21 & 19 & 2 & **90** & 12 & 9 & 57 & 12 & 9 & 57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison results for the types of mutations covered in Elevator. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mutation** \\ **Operators** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **Mutants** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Coffee Maker**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & _AutoTDGen_ & & _DFAAD_ & & & _EvoSuite_ & \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** & **Detected** & **Failed** & **Pct.** \\ \hline IM & 6 & 6 & 0 & 100 & 6 & 0 & 100 & 6 & 0 & 100 \\ \hline VMCM & 12 & 12 & 0 & **100** & 12 & 0 & **100** & 7 & 5 & 58 \\ \hline RVM & 26 & 25 & 1 & 96 & 25 & 1 & 96 & 26 & 0 & **100** \\ \hline MM & 9 & 9 & 0 & **100** & 9 & 0 & **100** & 4 & 5 & 44 \\ \hline NCM & 40 & 40 & 0 & 100 & 40 & 0 & 100 & 40 & 0 & 100 \\ \hline INM & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline CBM & 24 & 11 & 13 & 46 & 7 & 17 & 29 & 15 & 9 & **62** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison results for the types of mutations covered in Coffee Maker. the fault detection capability, the statement and branch coverage performance of the techniques were not much affected by the properties of the subjects.