不同测试集对质量水平预测的影响:何时80%优于90%?

P. Maxwell, R. Aitken, V. Johansen, I. Chiang
{"title":"不同测试集对质量水平预测的影响:何时80%优于90%?","authors":"P. Maxwell, R. Aitken, V. Johansen, I. Chiang","doi":"10.1109/TEST.1991.519695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the use of stuck-at fault coverage as a means of determining quality levels. Data from a part tested with both functional and scan tests is analyzed and compared to three existing theories. It is shown that reasonable predictions of quality level are possible for the functional tests, but that scan tests produce significantly worse quality levels than predicted, Apparent clustering of defects resulted in very good quality levels for fault coverages less than 99%.","PeriodicalId":272630,"journal":{"name":"1991, Proceedings. International Test Conference","volume":"193 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"182","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TEST SETS ON QUALITY LEVEL PREDICTION: WHEN IS 80% BETTER THAN 90%?\",\"authors\":\"P. Maxwell, R. Aitken, V. Johansen, I. Chiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/TEST.1991.519695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses the use of stuck-at fault coverage as a means of determining quality levels. Data from a part tested with both functional and scan tests is analyzed and compared to three existing theories. It is shown that reasonable predictions of quality level are possible for the functional tests, but that scan tests produce significantly worse quality levels than predicted, Apparent clustering of defects resulted in very good quality levels for fault coverages less than 99%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":272630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"1991, Proceedings. International Test Conference\",\"volume\":\"193 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"182\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"1991, Proceedings. International Test Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/TEST.1991.519695\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"1991, Proceedings. International Test Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/TEST.1991.519695","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 182

摘要

本文讨论了将滞留故障覆盖率作为确定质量水平的一种手段。通过功能测试和扫描测试对零件数据进行了分析,并与现有的三种理论进行了比较。结果表明,对功能测试的质量水平进行合理的预测是可能的,但扫描测试产生的质量水平明显低于预期,缺陷的明显聚类导致故障覆盖率低于99%的质量水平非常好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TEST SETS ON QUALITY LEVEL PREDICTION: WHEN IS 80% BETTER THAN 90%?
This paper discusses the use of stuck-at fault coverage as a means of determining quality levels. Data from a part tested with both functional and scan tests is analyzed and compared to three existing theories. It is shown that reasonable predictions of quality level are possible for the functional tests, but that scan tests produce significantly worse quality levels than predicted, Apparent clustering of defects resulted in very good quality levels for fault coverages less than 99%.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信