Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
4

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
13
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Refusals in the presence of inputs have been studied in [11,3,2]. The key difference between these previous approaches and ours is that they allowed refusals to be observed in states where outputs are enabled.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Refusals in the presence of inputs have been studied in [11,3,2]. The key difference between these previous approaches and ours is that they allowed refusals to be observed in states where outputs are enabled.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other lines of work are related to ours in that they investigated refusals for inputs [11,3,2]. These, however, allow refusals to be observed in states from which an output is possible.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These issues have drawn significant attention of the testing community, e.g., [1,6,7,11], and have been dealt with by allowing implicitly or explicitly the presence of channels, e.g., FIFO queues, between the IUT and tester [6,7,17]. However, queues impose a hard burden on the tester, since the communication is now distorted by possible delay in the transmission of messages via queues.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usually, it is assumed that the interaction between the tester and an implementation under test (IUT) is synchronous, implicitly assuming that the IUT can either refuse or accept inputs [2] [7] [12]. On the other hand, as the IUT can produce outputs at any moment, the tester should be prepared to accept all outputs from the IUT, or else be able to block (refuse) outputs of the implementation [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%