IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v175y2018icp265-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservative claims for the probability of perfection of a software-based system using operational experience of previous similar systems

Author

Listed:
  • Zhao, Xingyu
  • Littlewood, Bev
  • Povyakalo, Andrey
  • Strigini, Lorenzo
  • Wright, David

Abstract

We begin by briefly discussing the reasons why claims of probability of non-perfection (pnp) may sometimes be useful in reasoning about the reliability of software-based systems for safety-critical applications. We identify two ways in which this approach may make the system assessment problem easier. The first concerns the need to assess the chance of lifetime freedom from failure of a single system. The second concerns the need to assess the reliability of multi-channel software-diverse fault tolerant systems – in this paper, 1-out-of-2 systems. In earlier work (Littlewood and Rushby 2012; Littlewood and Povyakalo 2013) it was proposed that, in certain applications, claims for possible perfection of one of the channels in such a system may be feasible. It was shown that in such a case there is a particularly simple conservative expression for system pfd (probability of failure on demand), involving the pfd of one channel, and the pnp of the other. In this paper we address the problem of how to assess such a pnp. In previous work (Zhao et al., 2015) we have addressed this problem when the evidence available is only extensive failure-free working of the system in question. Here we consider the case in which there is, in addition, evidence of the previous success of the software development procedures used to build the system: specifically, several previous similar systems built using the same process have exhibited failure-free working during extensive operational exposure.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhao, Xingyu & Littlewood, Bev & Povyakalo, Andrey & Strigini, Lorenzo & Wright, David, 2018. "Conservative claims for the probability of perfection of a software-based system using operational experience of previous similar systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 265-282.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:175:y:2018:i:c:p:265-282
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.03.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832017305781
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2018.03.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhao, Xingyu & Littlewood, Bev & Povyakalo, Andrey & Strigini, Lorenzo & Wright, David, 2017. "Modeling the probability of failure on demand (pfd) of a 1-out-of-2 system in which one channel is “quasi-perfectâ€," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 230-245.
    2. Bunea, C. & Charitos, T. & Cooke, R.M. & Becker, G., 2005. "Two-stage Bayesian models—application to ZEDB project," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 123-130.
    3. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    4. Vaurio, Jussi K. & Jänkälä, Kalle E., 2006. "Evaluation and comparison of estimation methods for failure rates and probabilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 209-221.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qing Tian & Chun-Wu Yeh & Chih-Chiang Fang, 2022. "Bayesian Decision Making of an Imperfect Debugging Software Reliability Growth Model with Consideration of Debuggers’ Learning and Negligence Factors," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Qing Tian & Chih-Chiang Fang & Chun-Wu Yeh, 2022. "Software Release Assessment under Multiple Alternatives with Consideration of Debuggers’ Learning Rate and Imperfect Debugging Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Littlewood, Bev & Salako, Kizito & Strigini, Lorenzo & Zhao, Xingyu, 2020. "On reliability assessment when a software-based system is replaced by a thought-to-be-better one," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Popov, Peter, 2021. "Conservative reliability assessment of a 2-channel software system when one of the channels is probably perfect," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Littlewood, Bev & Salako, Kizito & Strigini, Lorenzo & Zhao, Xingyu, 2020. "On reliability assessment when a software-based system is replaced by a thought-to-be-better one," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. Quigley, John & Hardman, Gavin & Bedford, Tim & Walls, Lesley, 2011. "Merging expert and empirical data for rare event frequency estimation: Pool homogenisation for empirical Bayes models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 687-695.
    3. Strigini, Lorenzo & Wright, David, 2014. "Bounds on survival probability given mean probability of failure per demand; and the paradoxical advantages of uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 66-83.
    4. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.
    5. Francis, Royce & Bekera, Behailu, 2014. "A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    7. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    8. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.
    9. Baraldi, Piero & Podofillini, Luca & Mkrtchyan, Lusine & Zio, Enrico & Dang, Vinh N., 2015. "Comparing the treatment of uncertainty in Bayesian networks and fuzzy expert systems used for a human reliability analysis application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 176-193.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Probabilities and background knowledge as a tool to reflect uncertainties in relation to intentional acts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 229-234.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    12. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Pasanisi, Alberto & Keller, Merlin & Parent, Eric, 2012. "Estimation of a quantity of interest in uncertainty analysis: Some help from Bayesian decision theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-101.
    14. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    15. Bandeira, Michelle Carvalho Galvão Silva Pinto & Correia, Anderson Ribeiro & Martins, Marcelo Ramos, 2018. "General model analysis of aeronautical accidents involving human and organizational factors," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 137-146.
    16. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    17. Blancke, Olivier & Tahan, Antoine & Komljenovic, Dragan & Amyot, Normand & Lévesque, Mélanie & Hudon, Claude, 2018. "A holistic multi-failure mode prognosis approach for complex equipment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 136-151.
    18. Saemi Bang & Jaewook Jeong & Jaehyun Lee & Jaemin Jeong & Jayho Soh, 2023. "Evaluation of Accident Risk Level Based on Construction Cost, Size and Facility Type," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    19. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    20. Chen, Qian & Zuo, Lili & Wu, Changchun & Li, Yun & Hua, Kaixun & Mehrtash, Mahdi & Cao, Yankai, 2022. "Optimization of compressor standby schemes for gas transmission pipeline systems based on gas delivery reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:175:y:2018:i:c:p:265-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.