Checking Experiments for Finite State Machines with Symbolic Inputs

  • Alexandre PetrenkoEmail author
  • Adenilso Simao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9447)


There exists a significant body of work in the theory of checking experiments devoted to test generation from FSM which guarantees complete fault coverage for a given fault model. Practical applications require nevertheless methods for fault-model driven test generation from Extended FSMs (EFSM). Traditional approaches for EFSM focus on model coverage, which provides no characterization of faults that can be detected by the generated tests. Only few approaches use fault models, and we are not aware of any result in the theory of checking experiments for extended FSMs. In this paper, we lift the theory of checking experiments to EFSMs, which are Mealy machines with predicates defined over input variables treated as symbolic inputs. Considering this kind of EFSM, we propose a test generation method that produces a symbolic checking experiment, adapting the well-known HSI method. We then present conditions under which arbitrary instances of a symbolic checking experiment can be used for testing black-box implementations, while guaranteeing complete fault coverage.


Finite state machines Extended finite state machines Symbolic automata Conformance testing Checking experiments Fault model based test generation 



The first author acknowledges financial support of NSERC via Discovery grant RGPIN/194381-2012. The second author had financial support of Brazilian Funding Agencies, CNPq, Capes and grant 2015/17753-7, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).


  1. 1.
    Anand, S., Burke, E.K., Chen, T.Y., Clark, J., Cohen, M.B., Grieskamp, W., Harman, M., Harrold, M.J., McMinn, P.: An orchestrated survey of methodologies for automated software test case generation. J. Syst. Softw. 86(8), 1978–2001 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bochmann, G.V., Das, A., Dssouli, R., Dubuc, M., Ghedamsi, A., Luo, G.: Fault models in testing. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6. 1 Fourth International Workshop on Protocol Test Systems, IV, pp. 17–30. North-Holland Publishing Co. (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, K.T., Krishnakumar, A.S.: Automatic functional test generation using the extended finite state machine model. In: Proceedings of the 30th Design Automation Conference, pp. 86–91 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chow, T.S.: Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 4(3), 178–187 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chun, W., Amer, P.D.L.: Test case generation for protocols specified in Estelle. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6. 1 Third International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols: Formal Description Techniques, III, pp. 191–206. North-Holland Publishing Co. (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorofeeva, R., Yevtushenko, N., El-Fakih, K. and Cavalli, A.: Experimental evaluation of FSM-based testing methods. In: Third IEEE International Conference Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 23–32. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Railway Agency: ERTMS—System Requirements Specification—UNISIG SUBSET-026, May 2014.
  8. 8.
    Frantzen, L., Tretmans, J., Willemse, T.A.: Test generation based on symbolic specifications. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedenthal, S., Moore, A., Steiner, R.: A Practical Guide to SysML: the Systems Modeling Language. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujiwara, S., von Bochmann, G., Khendek, F., Amalou, M., Ghedamsi, A.: Test selection based on finite state models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(6), 591–603 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glässer, U., Gotzhein, R., Prinz, A.: The formal semantics of SDL-2000: status and perspectives. Comput. Netw. 42(3), 343–358 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5(4), 293–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hennie, F.C.: Fault-detecting experiments for sequential circuits. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium on Circuit Theory and Logical Design, pp. 95–110 (1965)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hong, H.S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O., Ural, H.: A temporal logic based theory of test coverage and generation. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, W.-l., Peleska, J.: Exhaustive model-based equivalence class testing. In: Yenigün, H., Yilmaz, C., Ulrich, A. (eds.) ICTSS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8254, pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang, W., Peleska, J.: Complete model-based equivalence class testing. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2014). doi: 10.1007/s10009-014-0356-8
  17. 17.
    Jéron, T., Veanes, M., Wolff, B. (eds.) Symbolic methods in testing. Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 13021 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalaji, A.S., Hierons, R.M., Swift, S.: Generating feasible transition paths for testing from an extended finite state machine (EFSM). In: International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 230–239. IEEE Computer Society, Silver Spring (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, X., Higashino, T., Higuchi, M., Taniguchi, K.: Automatic generation of extended UIO sequences for communication protocols in an EFSM model. In: Mizuno, T., Higashino, T., Shiratori, N. (eds.) Protocol Test Systems. IFIP, pp. 225–240. Springer, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maler, O., Mens, I.-E.: Learning regular languages over large alphabets. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 485–499. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore, E.F.: Gedanken-experiments on sequential machines. Automata Studies, pp. 129–153. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1956)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Noord, G., Gerdemann, D.: Finite state transducers with predicates and identities. Grammars 4(3), 263–286 (2001)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Test suite generation for a given type of implementation errors. In: Proceedings of the IFIP XII International Conference Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, pp. 229–243 (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N., von Bochmann, G.: Fault models for testing in context. In: Formal Description Techniques IX—Theory, Application and Tools, pp. 163–177. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrenko, A., Boroday, S., Groz, R.: Confirming configurations in EFSM testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(1), 29–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Conformance tests as checking experiments for partial nondeterministic FSM. In: Grieskamp, W., Weise, C. (eds.) FATES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3997, pp. 118–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrenko, A., Dury, A., Ramesh, S., Mohalik, S.: A method and tool for test optimization for automotive controllers. In: Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Advances in Model Based Testing (A-MOST 2013) of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST 2013), Luxembourg (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rusu, V., du Bousquet, L., Jéron, T.: An approach to symbolic test generation. In: Grieskamp, W., Santen, T., Stoddart, B. (eds.) IFM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1945, pp. 338–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simao, A., Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Generating Reduced Tests for FSMs with Extra States. In: Núñez, M., Baker, P., Merayo, M.G. (eds.) TESTCOM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5826, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simao, A., Petrenko, A.: Generating complete and finite test suite for ioco: is it possible? In: Proceedings of MBT 2014, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 141, pp. 56–70 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tiwari, A.: Formal semantics and analysis methods for Simulink Stateflow models. Technical report, SRI International (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vasilevskii, M.P.: Failure diagnosis of automata. Cybernetics 9(4), 653–665 (1973). Plenum Publishing Corporation, New YorkMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Veanes, Margus: Applications of symbolic finite automata. In: Konstantinidis, S. (ed.) CIAA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7982, pp. 16–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Veanes, M., Hooimeijer, P., Livshits, B., Molnar, D., Bjorner, N.: Symbolic finite state transducers: algorithms and applications. In: Proceedings of the 39th ACM Symposium on Principles of programming languages, pp. 137–150 (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, C.J., Liu, M.T.: Generating test cases for EFSM with given fault model. In: Proceedings of Twelfth Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, pp. 774–781 (1993)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watson, B.W.: Implementing and using finite automata toolkits. In: Extended Finite State Models of Language, pp. 19–36. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yannakakis, M., Lee, D.: Testing finite state machines: fault detection. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 50(2), 209–227 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yevtushenko, N., Petrenko, A.: Synthesis of test experiments in some classes of automata. Autom. Control Comput. Sci. 24(4), 50–55 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRIM, Centre de Recherche Informatique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Instituto de Ciencias Matematicas e de ComputacaoUniversidade de Sao PauloSao Carlos, Sao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations