t-Covering Arrays: Upper Bounds and Poisson Approximations

Abstract

A k×n array with entries from the q-letter alphabet {0, 1, …, q − 1} is said to be t-covering if each k × t submatrix has (at least one set of) qt distinct rows. We use the Lovász local lemma to obtain a general upper bound on the minimal number K = K(n, t, q) of rows for which a t-covering array exists; for t = 3 and q = 2, we are able to match the best-known such bound. Let Kλ = Kλ(n, t, q), (λ ≥ 2), denote the minimum number of rows that guarantees the existence of an array for which each set of t columns contains, amongst its rows, each of the qt possible ‘words’ of length t at least λ times. The Lovász lemma yields an upper bound on Kλ that reveals how substantially fewer rows are needed to accomplish subsequent t-coverings (beyond the first). Finally, given a random k × n array, the Stein–Chen method is employed to obtain a Poisson approximation for the number of sets of t columns that are deficient, i.e. missing at least one word.

Software and Hardware Testing Using Combinatorial Covering Suites

“…al. [ 21] also prove the following stronger result due to Roux [ 36] for the case in which 3 = t and 2 = n . The bound is stronger because the construction considers only the selection of columns with an equal number of zeros and ones, rather than selecting at random each entry in the matrix with a probability of ½.…”

“…Godbole, Skipper, and Sunley [ 21] use probabilistic arguments to show that a randomly chosen array, in which each symbol is selected with equal probability, has a positive probability of being a covering suite if the number of rows is large enough. Their result is stated below in Theorem 5.2:…”

Formal Analysis of the Probability of Interaction Fault Detection Using Random Testing

“…Notice that Theorem 3 has some relations with a theorem proven in [18] which states that, under the constraint N ! logðkÞ and a fixed v for the number of values each feature can have, then for k !…”

Producing scheduling that causes concurrent programs to fail

“…This is done since for a small number of subsets, selecting elements at random (e.g., choosing an element to belong to S i with probability 0.5) is as effective as the deterministic selection for the purpose of separating the good and bad elements (see [13]). Random construction is preferable due to:…”

“…Our goal is to choose the optimal subset of the program's locations in which a context should be performed. By studying the taxonomy of concurrent bugs [10] [18] [13], we determine that a concurrent bug manifests when a few concurrent events (referred to as events [4]) occur in a specific order. We can thus identify a concurrent bug with that sequence of concurrent events.…”