Annotating Control-Flow Graphs for Formalized Test Coverage Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control flow coverage criteria are an important part of the process of qualifying embedded software for safety-critical systems. Criteria such as modified condition/decision coverage (MC/DC) as defined by DO-178B are used by regulators to judge the adequacy of testing and by QA engineers to design tests when full path coverage is impossible.Despite their importance, these coverage criteria are often misunderstood. One problem is that their definitions are typically written in natural language specification documents, making them imprecise. Other works have proposed formal definitions using binary predicate logic, but these definitions are difficult to apply to the analysis of real programs. Control-Flow Graphs (CFGs) are the most common model for analyzing program logic in compilers, and seem to be a good fit for defining and analyzing coverage criteria. However, CFGs discard the explicit concept of a decision, making their use for this task seem impossible.In this paper, we show how to annotate a CFG with decision information inferred from the graph itself. We call this annotated model a Control-Flow Decision Graph (CFDG) and we use it to formally define several common coverage criteria. We have implemented our algorithms in a tool which we show can be applied to automatically annotate CFGs output from popular compilers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".