Reliability Prediction in Model-Driven Development

  • Genaína N. Rodrigues
  • David S. Rosenblum
  • Sebastian Uchitel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


Evaluating the implications of an architecture design early in the software development lifecycle is important in order to reduce costs of development. Reliability is an important concern with regard to the correct delivery of software system service. Recently, the UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service has defined a set of UML extensions to represent dependability concerns (including reliability) and other non-functional requirements in early stages of the software development lifecycle. Our research has shown that these extensions are not comprehensive enough to support reliability analysis for model-driven software engineering, because the description of reliability characteristics in this profile lacks support for certain dynamic aspects that are essential in modeling reliability. In this work, we define a profile for reliability analysis by extending the UML 2.0 specification to support reliability prediction based on scenario specifications. A UML model specified using the profile is translated to a labelled transition system (LTS), which is used for automated reliability prediction and identification of implied scenarios; the results of this analysis are then fed back to the UML model. The result is a comprehensive framework for addressing software reliability modeling, including analysis and evolution of reliability predictions. We exemplify our approach using the Boiler System used in previous work and demonstrate how reliability analysis results can be integrated into UML models.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Avižienis, J., Laprie, J., Randell, B.: Laprie, and B. Randell. Fundamental Concepts of Dependability. In: Proc. IARP/IEEE-RAS Workshop on Robot Dependability (May 2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayles, T., Field, A., Magee, J., Bennett, A.: Adding Performance Evaluation to the LTSA Tool (Tool Demonstration). In: Proc. 13th Performance Tools (September 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheung, R.C.: A User-Oriented Software Reliability Model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 6(2), 118–125 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cortellessa, V., Pompei, A.: Towards a UML profile for QoS: a contribution in the reliability domain. In: Proc. of the 4th WOSP, pp. 197–206. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Argenio, P.R., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P.: On Generative Parallel Composition. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 22. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gu, G.P., Petriu, D.C.: Early Evaluation of Software Performance Based on the UML Performance Profile. In: Proc. of the 2003 CASCON, pp. 66–79. IBM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs. Wiley, NY (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Bondavalli, A.: Stochastic Dependability Analysis of System Architecture Based on UML Models. In: Kumar, V., Gavrilova, M.L., Tan, C.J.K., L’Ecuyer, P. (eds.) ICCSA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2667, pp. 219–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Musa, J.D.: Operational profiles in software-reliability engineering. IEEE Software 10(2), 14–32 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    NoMagic Inc. MagicDraw UML,
  11. 11.
    OMG. Model Driven Architecture, (July 2001)
  12. 12.
    OMG. XMI Specification, (January 2002)
  13. 13.
    OMG. MOF 2.0 Specification, (October 2003)
  14. 14.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure, (2003)
  15. 15.
    OMG. UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, (September 2004)
  16. 16.
    OMG. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time Specification, (Januar 2005)
  17. 17.
    Rodrigues, G.N., Roberts, G., Emmerich, W.: Reliability support for the model driven architecture. In: de Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Architecting Dependable Systems II. LNCS, vol. 3069, pp. 79–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodrigues, G., Rosenblum, D., Uchitel, S.: Sensitivity Analysis for a Scenario-Based Reliability Prediction Model. In: Proc. ICSE 2005 Workshop on Architecting Dependable Systems, pp. 73–77 (May 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodrigues, G., Rosenblum, D.S., Uchitel, S.: Using scenarios to predict the reliability of concurrent component-based software systems. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skene, J., Emmerich, W.: A Model Driven Architecture Approach to Analysis of Non-Functional Properties of Software Architecture. In: Proc. of the 18th ASE, Toronto, CA, October 2001, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uchitel, S., Chatley, R., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: LTSA-MSC: Tool Support for Behaviour Model Elaboration Using Implied Scenarios. In: Proc. of 9th TACAS, Warsaw (April 2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of Behavioral Models from Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(2), 99–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental Elaboration of Scenario-Based Specifications and Behavior Models Using Implied Scenarios. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodologies 13(1), 37–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    W3C. XSL Transformations (XSLT), (November 1999)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Genaína N. Rodrigues
    • 1
  • David S. Rosenblum
    • 1
  • Sebastian Uchitel
    • 2
  1. 1.London Software Systems, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations