Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Evaluation of Prediction Accuracy of Classical and AI-Based Software Reliability Models

Authors: Mukesh Kumar; Rohitashwa Pandey;

Evaluation of Prediction Accuracy of Classical and AI-Based Software Reliability Models

Abstract

The growing dependence on software-intensive systems across critical application domains has made accurate software reliability prediction a fundamental requirement for ensuring system quality and safety and user confidence. Traditionally, software reliability assessments have relied on classical mathematical and statistical models that estimate failure behavior during the testing phase. Although these approaches have proven useful in relatively stable and controlled environments, their effectiveness often diminishes when applied to modern software systems characterized by increasing complexity, nonlinear interactions, and dynamic operational conditions. These limitations have motivated the exploration of more adaptive and data-driven prediction techniques. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of classical software reliability models and artificial intelligence–based machine learning approaches in terms of their prediction accuracy. Conventional statistical models were compared with a range of supervised and ensemble learning algorithms, including k-nearest neighbors, support vector machines, decision trees, random forests, AdaBoost, and gradient boosting. A comparative analysis was conducted using multiple publicly available software reliability datasets, and the model performance was assessed using standard accuracy and error-based evaluation metrics. The experimental results indicate that AI-driven models consistently achieve higher prediction accuracy and improved robustness across different datasets compared to traditional reliability models. In particular, ensemble learning techniques demonstrate superior performance by effectively capturing complex failure patterns and reducing the prediction variance. Although classical models offer advantages such as simplicity and interpretability, they lack the flexibility required to model the evolving failure behavior of modern software systems. The findings of this study highlight the potential of data-driven AI techniques as reliable and scalable solutions for software reliability prediction, supporting their increasing adoption in modern software quality engineering.

Keywords

Software Reliability Prediction, AI-Based Models, Ensemble Learning, Reliability Growth Models, Defect Prediction, Data-Driven Reliability Estimation, Software Quality Engineering, Failure Analysis.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green