MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111584600 · doi:10.1002/stvr.452

On reducing test length for FSMs with extra states

2011· article· en· W2111584600 on OpenAlexaff
Adenilso Simão, Alexandre Petrenko, Nina Yevtushenko

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Testing Verification and Reliability · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree traversalTest suiteComputer scienceReduction (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)AlgorithmFinite-state machineTest setImplementationTest caseTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY A long‐standing problem when testing from a deterministic finite state machine is to guarantee full fault coverage even if the faults introduce extra states in the implementations. It is well known that such tests should include the sequences in a traversal set which contains all input sequences of length defined by the number of extra states. This paper suggests the SPY method, which helps reduce the length of tests by distributing sequences of the traversal set and reducing test branching. It is also demonstrated that an additional assumption about the implementation under test relaxes the requirement of the complete traversal set. The results of the experimental comparison of the proposed method with an existing method indicate that the resulting reduction can reach 40%. Experimental results suggest that the additional assumption about the implementation can help in further reducing the test suite length. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.254
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Testing Verification and ReliabilitySame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207