Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems

Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems

The latter can be done by counting the number of minterms in the test function corresponding to each fault, which is a linear operation on the BDD size. Alternatively, if the test generation process used does not allow efficient retrieval of such information, a limited number of test generation Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems queries for each fault can be made, in order to classify faults according to criteria The motivation for this classification is to sort faults depending on how “difficult” they can be detected. Thus, orderings and give priority to easy-to-detect faults, while, ordering and favor hard-to-detect faults. Clearly, orderings and give more accurate classification of faults since they are not restricted to a given test set.

report experimental results for all five different orderings. For each ordering the relaxed test set size and the number of specified bits in the relaxed test set are reported. reports results for orderings respectively, Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems while report this information for the initial test set. provides results for orderings, respectively at this point ignore the columns labeled as they are discussed in the next subsection The best results for all orderings, in terms of specified bits, are shown in boldfaced font. Observe that there is a clear advantage Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems for orderingwhen considering faults with more tests easy-to-detect faults in test set , first.

Evaluation of software-defined networking for power system

In all but six circuits the most relaxed test sets are those where the faults are examined based on this rationale. Both orderings try to “accommodate” easy-to-detect faults first, in the tests considered. While ordering is most accurate than ordering the best results are obtained by the latter ordering, in most of the cases, while in the cases where is better the difference in specified bits is not large. Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems This is attributed to the fact that the proposed method is static, it is based on an initial test set, and therefore, it suffices to classify faults only for the given test set. This observation eliminates the need for considering ordering when no accurate information on the number of tests for each fault is available, if for instance, a structural-based test generation framework is used. The same information is reported in when the orderings considered the essential faults first, those faults that have or less detections.

Considering Evaluation of software-defined networking for power systems essential faults first does not give better results. Only in one case indicated by boldfaced font in considering essential fault first gives a better result. Nevertheless, our method allowsapplying alternative orderings with small increase on the CPU time, and keeps the best results in terms of specified bits. Impact of Relaxation on the Average Number of Detections shows experimental results justifying that random bit fixing restores the average detection parameter as well as the defect fault coverage. In this work we have considered the bridging fault model as a surrogate model to defects, using the standard non-feedback bridging fault model The bridging fault model is considered to be the most realistic model when targeting random defects and has been used widely for the evaluation of -detect test setsAfter the circuit name and the unspecified bits, even in those tests that after the relaxationprocess detect no faults and could have been actively removed from