MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102418068 · doi:10.1109/tse.2002.1049402

Timed Wp-method: testing real-time systems

2002· article· en· W2102418068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceNondeterministic algorithmCorrectnessTimed automatonAutomatonSystem under testFinite-state machineFault coverageReal-time operating systemTest caseReal-time computingDistributed computingAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time systems interact with their environment using time constrained input/output signals. Examples of real-time systems include patient monitoring systems, air traffic control systems, and telecommunication systems. For such systems, a functional misbehavior or a deviation from the specified time constraints may have catastrophic consequences. Therefore, ensuring the correctness of real-time systems becomes necessary. Two different techniques are usually used to cope with the correctness of a software system prior to its deployment, namely, verification and testing. In this paper, we address the issue of testing real-time software systems specified as a timed input output automaton (TIOA). TIOA is a variant of timed automaton. We introduce the syntax and semantics of TIOA. We present the potential faults that can be encountered in a timed system implementation. We study these different faults based on TIOA model and look at their effects on the execution of the system using the region graph. We present a method for generating timed test cases. This method is based on a state characterization technique and consists of the following three steps: First, we sample the region graph using a suitable granularity, in order to construct a subautomaton easily testable, called grid automaton. Then, we transform the grid automaton into a nondeterministic timed finite state machine (NTFSM). Finally, we adapt the generalized Wp-method to generate timed test cases from NTFSM. We assess the fault coverage of our test cases generation method and prove its ability to detect all the possible faults. Throughout the paper, we use examples to illustrate the various concepts and techniques used in our approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it