Software fault interactions and implications for software testing

By S. M. I. D. Richard Kuhn, Member Dolores R. Wallace, A. Gallo. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2004

849 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A survey of combinatorial testing (2011, background): “Later they studied the fault interactions of large distributed systems, and discovered that the failure-triggering interactions of this kind of systems are mostly 4 to 6 [Kuhn and Reilly 2002; Kuhn and Wallace 2004].”
Combination testing strategies: a survey (2005, background): “[42] in another study of the relationship between input and output values in a number of real applications.”
Constructing Interaction Test Suites for Highly-Configurable Systems in the Presence of Constraints: A Greedy Approach (2008, background): “A single test case may run without failing under one configuration, however, the same test case may fail under a different configuration [3], [4].”
Robustness Testing of Autonomy Software (2017, background): “However, a traditional software testing definition of bug dimensionality is the “number of conditions required to trigger a failure” [27].”
Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines (2013, background): “Several researchers have empirically investigated how defects and code paths in practical software systems are related to feature interactions (Kolberg et al. 2000; Kuhn et al. 2004; Reisner et al. 2010).”
Combinatorial aspects of covering arrays (2006, neutral): “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [82].”
IPOG: A General Strategy for T-Way Software Testing (2007, background): “However, faults can also be caused by interactions involving more than two parameters [10][11].”