Advertisement

Distinguishing Sequences for Partially Specified FSMs

  • Robert M. Hierons
  • Uraz Cengiz Türker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8430)

Abstract

Distinguishing Sequences (DSs) are used inmany Finite State Machine (FSM) based test techniques. Although Partially Specified FSMs (PSFSMs) generalise FSMs, the computational complexity of constructing Adaptive and Preset DSs (ADSs/PDSs) for PSFSMs has not been addressed. This paper shows that it is possible to check the existence of an ADS in polynomial time but the corresponding problem for PDSs is PSPACE-complete. We also report on the results of experiments with benchmarks and over 8 ∗ 106 PSFSMs.

Keywords

Input Sequence Finite State Machine Distinguishing Sequence Polynomial Space Conformance Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman, A.D., Menon, P.R.: Fault detection in digital circuits. Computer Applications in Electrical Engineering Series (1971)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers, principles, techniques, and tools. Addison-Wesley series in computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chow, T.S.: Testing software design modelled by finite state machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 4, 178–187 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and validation of computer protocols. Prentice-Hall software seriesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinksma, E.: A theory for the derivation of tests. In: Proceedings of Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII, pp. 63–74. North-Holland, Atlantic City (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dahbura, A.T., Sabnani, K.K., Uyar, M.U.: Formal methods for generating protocol conformance test sequences. Proceedings of the IEEE 78(8), 1317–1326 (August)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, D., Sabnani, K.K., Kristol, D.M., Paul, S.: Conformance testing of protocols specified as communicating finite state machines-a guided random walk based approach. IEEE Transactions on Communications 44(5), 631–640 (May)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Principles and methods of testing finite-state machines - a survey. Proceedings of the IEEE 84(8), 1089–1123 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Low, S.H.: Probabilistic conformance testing of protocols with unobservable transitions. In: Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference on Network Protocols, pp. 368–375 (October 1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mihail, M., Papadimitriou, C.H.: On the random walk method for protocol testing. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 132–141. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabnani, K., Dahbura, A.: A protocol test generation procedure. Computer Networks 15(4), 285–297 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sidhu, D.P., Leung, T.-K.: Formal methods for protocol testing: A detailed study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15(4), 413–426 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Binder, R.V.: Testing Object-Oriented Systems: Models, Patterns, and Tools. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haydar, M., Petrenko, A., Sahraoui, H.A.: Formal verification of web applications modeled by communicating automata. In: de Frutos-Escrig, D., Núñez, M. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3235, pp. 115–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Betin-Can, A., Bultan, T.: Verifiable concurrent programming using concurrency controllers. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 248–257. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pomeranz, I., Reddy, S.M.: Test generation for multiple state-table faults in finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Computers 46(7), 783–794 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Utting, M., Pretschner, A., Legeard, B.: A taxonomy of model-based testing approaches. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 22(5), 297–312 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grieskamp, W., Kicillof, N., Stobie, K., Braberman, V.A.: Model-based quality assurance of protocol documentation: Tools and methodology. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 21(1), 55–71 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aho, A.V., Dahbura, A.T., Lee, D., Uyar, M.U.: An optimization technique for protocol conformance test generation based on UIO sequences and rural chinese postman tours. In: Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII, Atlantic City, pp. 75–86. Elsevier, North-Holland (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hennie, F.C.: Fault-detecting experiments for sequential circuits. In: Proceedings of Fifth Annual Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, pp. 95–110. Princeton, New Jersey (November 1964)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gonenc, G.: A method for the design of fault detection experiments. IEEE Transactions on Computers 19, 551–558 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vasilevskii, M.P.: Failure diagnosis of automata. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 9, 653–665Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vuong, S.T., Chan, W.W.L., Ito, M.R.: The UIOv-method for protocol test sequence generation. In: The 2nd International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, Berlin (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fujiwara, S., von Bochmann, G., Khendek, F., Amalou, M., Ghedamsi, A.: Test selection based on finite state models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(6), 591–603 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ural, H., Zhu, K.: Optimal length test sequence generation using distinguishing sequences. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1(3), 358–371 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Testing from partial deterministic FSM specifications. IEEE Transactions on Computers 54(9), 1154–1165 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    von Bochmann, G., Petrenko, A.: Protocol testing: Review of methods and relevance for software testing. In: ACM International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Seattle USA, pp. 109–123 (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lai, R.: A survey of communication protocol testing. Journal of Systems and Software 62(1), 21–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kohavi, Z.: Switching and Finite State Automata Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moore, E.P.: Gedanken-experiments. In: Shannon, C., McCarthy, J. (eds.) Automata Studies. Princeton University Press (1956)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boute, R.T.: Distinguishing sets for optimal state identification in checking experiments. IEEE Trans. Comput. 23, 874–877 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hierons, R.M., Ural, H.: Optimizing the length of checking sequences. IEEE Trans. Comput. 55, 618–629 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jourdan, G.-V., Ural, H., Yenigun, H., Zhang, J.: Lower bounds on lengths of checking sequences. Formal Aspects of Computing 22(6), 667–679 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Testing finite-state machines: State identification and verification. IEEE Trans. on Computers 43(3), 306–320 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    da Silva Simão, A., Petrenko, A.: Checking completeness of tests for finite state machines. IEEE Transactions on Computers 59(8), 1023–1032 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    da Silva Simão, A., Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: On reducing test length for FSMs with extra states. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 22(6), 435–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hierons, R.M., Jourdan, G.-V., Ural, H., Yenigun, H.: Checking sequence construction using adaptive and preset distinguishing sequences. In: SEFM, pp. 157–166 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ural, H.: Formal methods for test sequence generation. Computer Communications 15(5), 311–325 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    da Silva Simão, A., Petrenko, A.: Generating checking sequences for partial reduced finite state machines. Testing of Software and Communicating Systems, 153–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tsai, P.-C., Wang, S.-J., Chang, F.-M.: FSM-based programmable memory bist with macro command. In: 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Memory Technology, Design, and Testing, MTDT 2005, pp. 72–77 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zarrineh, K., Upadhyaya, S.J.: Programmable memory bist and a new synthesis framework. In: Twenty-Ninth Annual International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. Digest of Papers, pp. 352–355 (June 1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xie, L., Wei, J., Zhu, G.: An improved FSM-based method for BGP protocol conformance testing. In: International Conference on Communications, Circuits and Systems, pp. 557–561 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drumea, A., Popescu, C.: Finite state machines and their applications in software for industrial control. In: 27th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology: Meeting the Challenges of Electronics Technology Progress, vol. 1, pp. 25–29 (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Testing from partial deterministic FSM specifications. IEEE Transactions on Computers 54(9), 1154–1165 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yannakakis, M., Lee, D.: Testing finite state machines: Fault detection. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 50(2), 209–227 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yevtushenko, N., Petrenko, A.: Synthesis of test experiments in some classes of automata. Automatic Control and Computer Sciences 4 (1990)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gill, A.: Introduction to The Theory of Finite State Machines. McGraw-Hill, New York (1962)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rho, J.-K., Hachtel, G., Somenzi, F.: Don’t care sequences and the optimization of interacting finite state machines. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ICCAD 1991. Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 418–421 (November 1991)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sokolovskii, M.N.: Diagnostic experiments with automata. Kibernetica (6), 44–49 (1971)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Savitch, W.J.: Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 4(2), 177–192 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Güniçen, C., Türker, U.C., Ural, H., Yenigün, H.: Generating preset distinguishing sequences using sat. In: Computer and Information Sciences II, pp. 487–493. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brglez, F.: ACM/SIGMOD benchmark dataset, http://cbl.ncsu.edu:16080/benchmarks/Benchmarks-upto-1996.html

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Hierons
    • 1
  • Uraz Cengiz Türker
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Systems, Computing and MathematicsBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Sabancı Üniversitesi Orta MahalleIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations