2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2006.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification and conformance test generation of communication protocol for railway signaling systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Generate FSMs randomly can obtain a large amount of FSMs in a short time, however, whether the experimental conclusions obtained from randomly generated FSMs are completely applicable on FSM empirical cases are still uncertain. This paper selects 14 established FSM empirical cases which are designed and generated by testers with professional experience and domain knowledge [17,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The information of all FSM empirical cases…”
Section: Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generate FSMs randomly can obtain a large amount of FSMs in a short time, however, whether the experimental conclusions obtained from randomly generated FSMs are completely applicable on FSM empirical cases are still uncertain. This paper selects 14 established FSM empirical cases which are designed and generated by testers with professional experience and domain knowledge [17,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The information of all FSM empirical cases…”
Section: Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Suppose a safety property was got in step 1, a SUT model and a set of INF = {inf 1 , inf 2 , inf 3 ,…} were got in step 2. Each time, we choose an inf i from INF, and implement step 3 and step 4.…”
Section: Step 5: Test Suite Creationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to check for the absence of a property, exhaustive testing of all paths for a safety property is necessary but often infeasible [2]. It is better to verify these properties using model checking [3]. In another sense, safety is defined as freedom from unacceptable levels of risk of harm.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al [10][11][12] described a TCS protocol using label transition system (LTS) and verified it by model checking. Katsaros [13] used colored petri nets (CPN) and the CPN Tools environment to edit an electronic payment protocol model and verified the CPN model by computation tree logic (CTL) based model checking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%