Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
C. T. Vuong
dblp:49/2833
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1989
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer networks
1 paper |
Network management and operations · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Network management and operations › network testing
protocol conformance testing |
0.0 | 1 | 1989 | An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOS · SIGCOMM 1989 |
Automata and formal languages › finite automata
finite state machine testing |
0.0 | 1 | 1989 | An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOS · SIGCOMM 1989 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
unique input/output sequences · 0.0distinguishing sequences · 0.0distinguishing sequence · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOSabstractThis paper shows the Unique Input/Output, UIO, approach and the Distinguishing Sequence, DS, approach for the conformance testing of protocol implementations do not always produce identical fault converges, contrary to a previous claim. In the UIO approach, when UIO sequences and signatures are not unique in an implementation, they may not be able to detect erroneous states in the implementation. The UIO approach is revised here with the addition of a verification procedure to ensure that the UIO sequences are all unique in an implementation. Since signatures are generally not unique, this revision requires substituting the use of a signature for a state, S, with a set of input/output sequences, IO(S,K)s, unique to S, each of which distinguishes S from at least one other state, K. Verification is then applied to the IO(S,K)s. Fault coverage in the revised UIO, UIOv, approach is better than that in the original approach. A uniqueness criterion is discussed here to capture a desirable fault coverage for finite-state machine, FSM, test sequences. This criterion ensures the detection of any faulty FSM implementation provided that its set of states does not exceed that in the specified FSM. It is shown that test sequences generated by the UIOv approach and the DS approach always satisfy the uniqueness criterion. In fact, the DS approach is a special case of the UIOv approach; however, the UIOv approach has wider applicability and is generally applicable to k-distinguishable FSMs. W. Y. L. Chan, C. T. Vuong, M. R. Otp |
SIGCOMM | 2 |