Alternating simulation and IOCO

Veanes, Margus; Bjørner, Nikolaj

doi:10.1007/s10009-011-0215-9

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent work has showed that ioco is equivalent to an alternative implementation relation called alternating simulation, used with interface automata, if the IOTSs are input-enabled 1 [Veanes and Bjørner 2010]. As a result, it should be possible to adapt methods devised for IOTSs and ioco to languages whose semantics is expressed using alternating simulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Centralised and Distributed Testing

Hierons

2014

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many systems interact with their environment at distributed interfaces (ports) and sometimes it is not possible to place synchronised local testers at the ports of the system under test (SUT). There are then two main approaches to testing: having independent local testers or a single centralised tester that interacts asynchronously with the SUT. The power of using independent testers has been captured using implementation relation dioco. In this paper we define implementation relation diococ for the centralised approach and prove that dioco and diococ are incomparable. This shows that the frameworks detect different types of faults and so we devise a hybrid framework and define an implementation relation diocos for this. We prove that the hybrid framework is more powerful than the distributed and centralised approaches. We then prove that the Oracle problem is NP-complete for diococ and diocos but can be solved in polynomial time if we place an upper bound on the number of ports. Finally, we consider the problem of deciding whether there is a test case that is guaranteed to force a finite state model into a particular state or to distinguish two states, proving that both problems are undecidable for the centralised and hybrid frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Centralised and Distributed Testing

Hierons

2014

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main loop of Algorithm 1 iterates over the set of variables of the form X qp , for q ∈ Q and p ∈ S. This means there are at most |Q| × |S| iterations. The complexity of a single iteration is given by the sum of the complexity of the two inner loops (lines 9-17 and lines [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

Section: Complexity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coinductive definition of ioco, which is an important means for this result, is akin to the alternating refinement [4] of Interface Automata [3] (see also [1,10]). In [22], it is shown that for deterministic models and implementations, alternating refinement coincides with ioco. In this paper, we show that our coinductive definition of ioco coincides with ioco for deterministic models (and possibly nondeterministic implementations).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Complexity of Input Output Conformance Testing

Noroozi

Mousavi

Willemse

2014

Formal Aspects of Component Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Input-output conformance (ioco) testing is a well-known approach to model-based testing. In this paper, we study the complexity of checking ioco. We show that the problem of checking ioco is PSPACEcomplete. To provide a more efficient algorithm, we propose a more restricted setting for checking ioco, namely with deterministic models and show that in this restricted setting ioco checking can be performed in polynomial time.

show abstract

“…[19]. Overall, MST shares with [26] the vision of a unified framework for generalising and analysing formalism for symbolic test case generation. Due to shallow representations of programs and pre-post-condition-based program specifications, the MST approach is intrinsic symbolic; no complicated "lifting" of IO Automata or IO LTS's to symbolic versions thereof like IOSTS's is necessary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monadic Sequence Testing and Explicit Test-Refinements

Brucker

Wolff²

2016

Tests and Proofs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an abstract framework for sequence testing that is implemented in Isabelle/HOL-TestGen. Our framework is based on the theory of state-exception monads, explicitly modelled in HOL, and can cope with typed input and output, interleaving executions including abort, and synchronisation. The framework is particularly geared towards symbolic execution and has proven effective in several large case-studies involving system models based on large (or infinite) state. On this basis, we rephrase the concept of test-refinements for inclusion, deadlock and IOCO-like tests, together with a formal theory of its relation to traditional, IO-automata based notions.

show abstract

Alternating simulation and IOCO

Cited by 14 publications

References 37 publications

Combining Centralised and Distributed Testing

Combining Centralised and Distributed Testing

On the Complexity of Input Output Conformance Testing

Monadic Sequence Testing and Explicit Test-Refinements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About