publication . Part of book or chapter of book . 1996

Acceptance Criteria for Critical Software Based on Testability Estimates and Test Results

Strigini, L.; Bertolino, A.;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Jan 1996
  • Publisher: Springer London
  • Country: United Kingdom
Abstract
Testability is defined as the probability that a program will fail a test, conditional on the program containing some fault. In this paper, we show that statements about the testability of a program can be more simply described in terms of assumptions on the probability distribution of the failure intensity of the program. We can thus state general acceptance conditions in clear mathematical terms using Bayesian inference. We develop two scenarios, one for software for which the reliability requirements are that the software must be completely fault-free, and another for requirements stated as an upper bound on the acceptable failure probability.
Subjects
free text keywords: Software, business.industry, business, Probability distribution, Systems engineering, Testability, Computer science, Acceptance testing, Upper and lower bounds, Reliability engineering, Bayesian inference, QA76
Related Organizations
Download fromView all 2 versions
http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/2...
Part of book or chapter of book
Provider: UnpayWall
City Research Online
Part of book or chapter of book . 1996
http://www.springerlink.com/in...
Part of book or chapter of book
Provider: Crossref
16 references, page 1 of 2

[1] Musa JD. Operational profiles in software-reliability engineering. IEEE Software 1993; March: 14-32.

[2] Parnas DL, van Schouwen AJ, Kwan SP. Evaluation of safety-critical software. Communications of the ACM 1990; 33: 636-648.

[3] Miller KW, Morell LJ, Noonan RE, et al. Estimating the probability of failure when testing reveals no failures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1992; 18: 33-43.

[4] Littlewood B, Strigini L. Validation of ultra-high dependability for softwarebased systems. Communications of the ACM 1993; 36: 69-80. [OpenAIRE]

[5] Butler RW, Finelli GB. The infeasibility of experimental quantification of life - critical software reliability. In Proc. ACM Conference on Software for Critical Systems, in ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes, Vol. 16 (5). New Orleans, Louisiana, 1991, pp 66-76. [OpenAIRE]

[6] Hamlet D, Voas J. Faults on its sleeve: amplifying software reliability testing. In Proc. 1993 Int. Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), in ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes, Vol. 18 (3). Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1993, pp 89-98. [OpenAIRE]

[7] Voas JM, Miller KW. Improving the software development process using testability research. In Proc. of the Third Int. Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 1992, pp 114-121.

[8] Voas JM, Michael CC, Miller KW. Confidently assessing a zero probability of software failure. In Proc. SAFECOMP '93 12th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. Poznan-Kiekrz, Poland, 1993, pp 197- 206.

[9] Voas JM, Michael CC, Miller KW. Confidently assessing a zero probability of software failure. High Integrity Systems 1995; 1: 269-275.

[10] Voas JM, Miller KW. Software testability: The new verification. IEEE Software 1995; May: 17-28. [OpenAIRE]

[11] Bertolino A, Strigini L. On the use of testability measures for dependability assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1996; 22: 97-108. [OpenAIRE]

[12] Bertolino A, Strigini L. Predicting software reliability from testing taking into account other knowledge about a program. In Proc. Quality Week '96. San Francisco, 1996.

[13] Bertolino A, Strigini L. Is it more convenient to assess a probability of failure or of correctness? Submitted for publication 1996.

[14] Kahnemann D, Slovic P, Tversky A (ed). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, 1982. [OpenAIRE]

[15] Strigini L. Engineering judgement in reliability and safety and its limits: what can we learn from research in psychology? SHIP project Technical Report T/030, July, 1994.

16 references, page 1 of 2
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue