15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
DOI: 10.1109/issre.2004.47
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of a Methodology for Assessing Software Reliability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The expected system failure rate has decreased from 0.0819 to 0.0604, an improvement of 26.25%. This result matches closely the measured reliability of our implementation [16]. Predictive performance can be explained by the error propagation, since there is a substantial probability (0.425 in Table 3) that an error in Driver component (C1) can affect the PACS component C2.…”
Section: The Sensitivity Analysis Assuming Failure Independencesupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The expected system failure rate has decreased from 0.0819 to 0.0604, an improvement of 26.25%. This result matches closely the measured reliability of our implementation [16]. Predictive performance can be explained by the error propagation, since there is a substantial probability (0.425 in Table 3) that an error in Driver component (C1) can affect the PACS component C2.…”
Section: The Sensitivity Analysis Assuming Failure Independencesupporting
confidence: 83%
“…More important for the subject of this paper, in a related project [16] we implemented PACS and empirically evaluated its reliability through extensive testing. To our dismay the observed system reliability was much lower than predicted by this model, even though component reliabilities were those indicated in Table 1.…”
Section: System Reliability Under Failure Independence Assumptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between code coverage and software reliability (Adams 1980;Ramsey and Basili 1985;Garg 1994;Veevers and Marshall 1994;Malaiya et al 1994;Jalote and Muralidhara 1994;Varadan 1995;Horgan et al 1995;Malaiya et al 1996;Chen et al 1996;Gokhale et al 1996;Krishnamurthy and Mathur 1996;Chen et al 1997;Chen et al 2001;Ye and Malaiya 2002;Malaiya et al 2002;Grottke 2002;Pham and Zhang 2003;Li et al 2004). An early experiment using control flow and data flow based testing was conducted by Frate et al (1995a).…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To predict software reliability at the end of requirements stage with limited information about a system at hand, appropriate measures (or metrics) need to be selected and methods should be developed to bridge the gap between measures and reliability. In our previous research [5], we found that CEGA is a promising candidate for this purpose.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%