This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Optimal Transfer Trees and Distinguishing Trees for Testing Observable Nondeterministic Finite-State Machines
January 2003 (vol. 29 no. 1)
pp. 1-14

Abstract—The fault-state detection approach for blackbox testing consists of two phases. The first is to bring the system under test (SUT) from its initial state to a targeted state t and the second is to check various specified properties of the SUT at t. This paper investigates the first phase for testing systems specified as observable nondeterministic finite-state machines with probabilistic and weighted transitions. This phase involves two steps. The first step transfers the SUT to some state t' and the second step identifies whether t' is indeed the targeted state t or not. State transfer is achieved by moving the SUT along one of the paths of a transfer tree (TT) and state identification is realized by using diagnosis trees (DT). A theoretical foundation for the existence and characterization of TT and DT with minimum weighted height or minimum average weight is presented. Algorithms for their computation are proposed.

[1] R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, and M. Yannakakis, “Distinguishing Tests for Nondeterministic and Probabilistic Machines,” Proc. 27th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, pp. 363-372, 1995.
[2] T.Y. Cheung, Y. Wu, and X. Ye, “Generating Test Sequences and their Degrees of Nondeterminism for Protocols,” Proc. 11th IFIP G6.1 Int'l Symp. Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, pp. 278-293, 1991.
[3] T.Y. Cheung and X. Ye, “A Fault-Detection Approach to the Conformance Testing of Nondeterministic Systems,” J. Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 28, pp. 94-100, 1995.
[4] A. Condon and R.E. Ladner, “Probabilistic Game Automata,” J. Computer and System Science, vol. 36, pp. 452-489, 1988.
[5] C. Derman, Finite State Markov Decision Processes. Academic Press, 1972.
[6] S. Fujiwara and G.v. Bochmann, “Testing Non-Deterministic State Machines with Fault Coverage,” Protocol Test Systems, J. Kroon, R.J. Heijink, and E. Brinksma, eds., vol. IV, pp. 267-280, 1992.
[7] D. Hogrefe, “OSI Formal Specification Case Study: The Inres Protocol and Services, Revised,” technical report, Univ. of Berne, 1992.
[8] J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Apr. 1979.
[9] R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.
[10] R. Howard, Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. MIT Press, 1980.
[11] H. Kloomsterman, “Test Derivation from Nondeterministic Finite-State Machines,” Protocol Test Systems, G.v. Bochmann, R. Dssouli and A. Das, eds., vol. V, pp. 297-308, 1993.
[12] Z. Kohavi, Switching and Finite Automata Theory. McGraw-Hill, 1978.
[13] D. Lee and M. Yannakakis, Principles and Methods of Testing Finite State Machines, a Survey Proc. IEEE, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 1090-1123, Aug. 1996.
[14] S. Low, “Probabilistic Conformance Testing of Protocols with Unobservable Transitions,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Network Protocols, pp. 368-375, 1993.
[15] G. Luo, G.V. Bochman, and A. Petrenko, “Test Selection Based on Communicating Nodetermistic Finite State Machines Using a Generalized wp-Method,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 149-162, Feb. 1994.
[16] G. Luo, G.v. Bochmann, A. Das, and C. Wu, “Failure-Equivalent Transformation of Transition Systems to Avoid Internal Actions,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 44, pp. 333-343, 1992.
[17] G. Rothermel, M.J. Harrold, J. Ostrin, and C. Hong, Empirical Study of the Effects of Minimization on the Fault Detection Capabilities of Test Suites Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Maintenance, pp. 34-43, Nov. 1998.
[18] K. Sabnani and A. Dahbura,“A protocol test generation procedure,”Comput. Networks and ISDN Syst.,vol. 15, pp. 285–297, 1988.
[19] B. Sarikaya, Principles of Protocol Engineering and Conformance Testing. Ellis Horwood, 1993.
[20] P.H. Starke, Abstract Automata. North-Holland/American Elsevier, 1972.
[21] P. Tripathy and K. Naik, "Generation of Adaptive Tests from Nondeterministic Finite State Models," Proc. Protocol Test Systems, V, pp. 309-320, 1992.
[22] W.E. Wong et al., "Effect of Test Set Minimization on Fault Detection Effectiveness," Software—Practice and Experience, Apr. 1998, pp. 347-369.
[23] W.E. Wong, J.R. Horgan, A.P. Mathur, and A. Pasquini, “Test Set Size Minimization and Fault Detection Effectiveness: A Case Study in a Space Application,” Proc. 21st Ann. Int'l Computer Software&Applications Conf., pp. 522–528, Aug. 1997.
[24] W. Yi and K.G. Larsen, “Testing Probabilistic and Nondeterministic Processes,” Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, vol. XII, pp. 47-62, 1992.

Index Terms:
Average weight, distinguishing tree, nondeterministic finite-state machine, testing, transfer tree, weighted height.
Citation:
Fan Zhang, To-yat Cheung, "Optimal Transfer Trees and Distinguishing Trees for Testing Observable Nondeterministic Finite-State Machines," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-14, Jan. 2003, doi:10.1109/TSE.2003.1166585
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.