Partial-Input Test Vectors for Hidden Dependency Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current testing methods fail to effectively detect errors in system implementations due to the use of default values for undefined inputs, which can mask errors and lack confidence in ensuring that actual output values are derived solely from defined system inputs.

Innovation Solution

Generate extended test vectors by replacing undefined system inputs with different values, executing these vectors on a target platform, and verifying whether outputs match expected values to confirm that outputs are derived only from defined inputs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If default values are automatically set for undefined inputs in test cases, then test execution can proceed, but error detection capability deteriorates because default values may mask errors and provide false confidence

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetest execution efficiencyVSAvoiderror detection capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by executing the system under test multiple times with different combinations of undefined input values, rather than requiring all possible combinations. This allows efficient error detection by testing a representative subset of scenarios, balancing productivity and reliability without exhaustive testing overhead

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback by comparing actual output values against expected output values for each test execution. When mismatches occur, the system identifies potential errors and uses this information to guide further testing, improving error detection capability while maintaining efficient test execution through targeted re-testing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Ease of manufacture

If only a partial subset of system inputs is defined in test cases, then test case development is simplified, but confidence in output correctness deteriorates because it cannot be ensured that outputs are derived solely from defined inputs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetest case development easeVSAvoidoutput correctness confidence
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-defining expected output values for each test case based on the defined input values and system requirements. This allows testers to develop simplified test cases with partial input definitions while maintaining confidence in output correctness through pre-established expected results that account for the relationship between defined inputs and outputs

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses feedback by systematically comparing actual output values against pre-defined expected output values. This verification process provides measurable confidence that outputs are correctly derived from defined inputs, while allowing test cases to remain simple with partial input definitions

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Reliability

If multiple combinations of undefined input values are tested, then error detection capability improves, but test execution time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveerror detection capabilityVSAvoidtest execution time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by selecting and executing a representative subset of undefined input value combinations rather than testing all possible combinations. This approach detects errors effectively by covering critical scenarios while avoiding the exponential time cost of exhaustive testing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements periodic action by executing test cases in repeated cycles with different undefined input value combinations. This systematic periodic testing improves error detection capability through multiple perspectives while managing test execution time through structured iteration rather than random or exhaustive approaches

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentEP4675439A1Systems and methods for improved testing of system implementation given partially defined input values and expected output values
Publication Date: 2026.01.07 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
  • EP4675439A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4675439A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4675439A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Systems and methods for improved testing of system implementation are described herein. In one example, a method includes receiving a test case based on requirements for a system, wherein a first subset of all system inputs includes defined system inputs for the test case, wherein a second subset of all system inputs includes undefined system inputs for the test case. The method further includes generating extended test vectors from the test case by replacing the undefined system inputs for the test case with different values, wherein each respective extended test vector includes a different combination of values for the undefined system inputs from other extended test vectors. The method further includes executing the extended test vectors on a target platform for the system. The method further includes verifying whether outputs generated during execution of the extended test vectors match expected values for the defined system outputs for the test case.