Test Generation Driven by User-Defined Fault Models

  • Irina Koufareva
  • Alexandre Petrenko
  • Nina Yevtushenko
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 21)


In this paper, we consider the problem of test derivation from a specification FSM, assuming that all possible implementation FSMs are submachines of some nondeterministic FSM. The latter represents a restricted class of faults defined by the user. The state number in an implementation may exceed that of the specification. We present a method for test generation that can deliver shorter tests than the other existing methods. The method is also more flexible than the traditional FSM-based methods, which embody a universal fault model defined only by a state number.


Conformance testing test generation fault models finite state machines. 


  1. [ACY95]
    R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, and M. Yannakakis, Distinguishing tests for nondeterministic and probabilistic machines, Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1995, pp. 363–372.Google Scholar
  2. [BrJu92]
    J. A. Brzozowski, H. Jurgensen, A Model for sequential machine testing and diagnosis, Journal of Electronic Testing: Theory and Applications, 2, 1992, pp. 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Chow78]
    T. S. Chow, Test software design modeled by finite state machines, IEEE Transactions, SE-4, No. 3, 1978, pp. 178–187.Google Scholar
  4. [FBKA91]
    S. Fujiwara, G. v. Bochmann, F. Khendek, M. Amalou, A. G.edamsi, Test selection based on finite state models, IEEE Trans. SE-17, No. 6, 1991, pp. 591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Gi1l62]
    A. Gill, Introduction to the theory of finite-state machines, McGraw-Hill, 1962, 207 p.Google Scholar
  6. [GrPe88]
    I. Grunskij, A. Petrenko, Design of checking experiments with automata describing protocols, in Automatic Control and Computer Science, Allerton Press Inc., N.Y., 1988, No. 4, pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
  7. [John74]
    D. S. Johnson, Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 9, 1974, pp. 256–278.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [Kozl81]
    V. A. Kozlovsky, On the recognition of an automaton relative to a locally generated class, Soviet Math. Dokl., 1981, vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 625–628.Google Scholar
  9. [NaTs81]
    S. Naito and M. Tsunoyama, Fault detection for sequential machines by transition tours, Proceedings of Fault Tolerant Comp. Syst., 1981, pp. 238–243.Google Scholar
  10. [Petr91]
    A. Petrenko, Checking experiments with protocol machines, IFIP Transactions, Protocol Testing Systems IV (the Proceedings if IFIP TC6 4Th International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, 1991), Ed. by Jan Kroon, Rudolf J. Heijink and Ed Brinksma, 1992, North-Holland, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  11. [PeYe92]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, Test suite generation for a given type of implementation errors, Proceedings of the IFIP XII International Conference on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, 1992, pp. 229–243.Google Scholar
  12. [PYD94]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, and R. Dssouli, Testing strategies for communicating FSMs, Proceedings of the 7th IWTCS, 1994, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
  13. [PYB96]
    A. Petrenko, N. Yevtushenko, G. v. Bochmann, and R. Dssouli. Testing in context: framework and test derivation, Computer communications, Vol. 19, pp. 1236–1249, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [PoMc64]
    J. F. Poage, E. J. McCluskey, Derivation of optimum test sequences for sequential machines, Proceedings of the 5th Annu. Symp. On Switching Theory and Logical Design, 1964.Google Scholar
  15. [PoRe97]
    I. Pomeranz, S. M. Reddy, Test generation for multiple state-table faults in finite-state machines, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. 46, No 7, pp. 782–794, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Vasi73]
    M. P. Vasilevsky, Failure diagnosis of automata, Cybernetics, Plenum Publishing Corporation, NY, No. 4, 1973, pp. 653–665.Google Scholar
  17. [VCI89]
    S. T. Vuong, W. W. L. Chan, M. R. Ito, The U10-method for protocol test sequence generation, Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, 1989, pp. 161–175.Google Scholar
  18. [YaLe95]
    M. Yannakakis, D. Lee, Testing finite state machines: fault detection, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 1995, 50, pp. 209–227.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [YePe90]
    N. Yevtushenko, A. Petrenko, A method of constructing a test experiment for an arbitrary deterministic automaton, Automatic Control and Computer Science, Allerton Press Inc., N.Y., 1990, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 65–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Koufareva
    • 1
  • Alexandre Petrenko
    • 2
  • Nina Yevtushenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussia
  2. 2.CRIM, Centre de Recherche Informatique de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations