Skip to content
STIMSMITH

Pseudo-Random Testing

Technique
First seen 7/18/2026
Last seen 7/18/2026
Evidence 6 chunks

NEIGHBORHOOD

No graph connections found for this entity yet. It may appear in future ingestion runs.

explore full graph →

RELATIONSHIPS

7 connections
Transaction Coverage uses → 100% 2e
Random testing recorded transaction coverage on a per-master and per-slave basis.
Functional Coverage uses → 90% 2e
Random testing achieves functional coverage through cross-coverage of transaction types and FSM transitions.
e Language Verification Component (eVC) uses → 100% 2e
Random testing used dedicated in-house eVCs for the FPI and LMB buses.
Specman-Elite uses → 100% 2e
Pseudo-random testing was performed using Specman Elite.
FSM Transition Coverage uses → 100% 2e
Random testing hooks Specman to internal state machines and measures FSM transition coverage.
Constraint-Driven Testing uses → 100% 1e
Pseudo-random testing is described as pseudo-random constraint-driven testing.
A Comparison of Three Verification Techniques: Directed Testing, Pseudo-Random Testing and Property Checking ← evaluates 100% 1e
The paper compares and evaluates pseudo-random testing as one of three verification techniques.