  We propose a new test case prioritization technique that combines both
mutation-based and diversity-based approaches. Our diversity-aware
mutation-based technique relies on the notion of mutant distinguishment, which
aims to distinguish one mutant's behavior from another, rather than from the
original program. We empirically investigate the relative cost and
effectiveness of the mutation-based prioritization techniques (i.e., using both
the traditional mutant kill and the proposed mutant distinguishment) with 352
real faults and 553,477 developer-written test cases. The empirical evaluation
considers both the traditional and the diversity-aware mutation criteria in
various settings: single-objective greedy, hybrid, and multi-objective
optimization. The results show that there is no single dominant technique
across all the studied faults. To this end, \rev{we we show when and the reason
why each one of the mutation-based prioritization criteria performs poorly,
using a graphical model called Mutant Distinguishment Graph (MDG) that
demonstrates the distribution of the fault detecting test cases with respect to
mutant kills and distinguishment.
