A Probabilistic Model for Analysis and Fault Detection in the Software System: An Empirical Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 298)

Abstract

Software reliability and estimation of defects plays an important role in software testing stage. For studying defects, one common practice is to inject faults in subject software, either manually or by using a program that generates all possible mutants based on a set of mutation constraints. Getting the optimized results for the software system while predicting defects using realistic analysis, and confirming whether that leads to valid and consistent data during software testing stage is a challenge. In this paper, we propose Process simulation Model (PSM), which is a probabilistic model-based approach that overcomes these challenges and enables prediction of software defects and its impact in the system using Bayesian estimation. Moreover, a Fault Detection Algorithm FDA is derived from PSM model that helps to predict software faults for different deterministic problems that we have taken in our experimental study to demonstrate the reliability, verification and consistency of the system. A comparative study is shown on various deterministic problems by finding set of random defects through probabilistic approach the fault may occur in the proposed software model.

Keywords

Fault-tolerant Fault injection Mutant Reliability Consistency Verification 

References

  1. 1.
    De Florio V, Botti O (2002) Software-implemented fault-tolerance and separate recovery strategies enhance maintainability. IEEE Trans Reliab 51(2):158–165Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu Y, Hu Q, Xie M, Ng SH (2007) Modeling and analysis of software fault detection and correction process by considering time dependency. IEEE Trans Reliab 56(4):629–642Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Natella R, Cotroneo D, Duraes JA On fault representativeness of software fault injection. IEEE Trans Software Eng 39(1), 80–96, 03 January 2012 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carreira J, Madeira H, Silva JG (1998) Xception: a technique for the experimental evaluation of dependability in modern computers. IEEE Trans Software Eng 24(2):125–136Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrews JH, Briand LC, Labiche Y, Namin AS (2006) Using mutation analysis for assessing and comparing testing coverage criteria. IEEE Trans Software Eng 32(8):608–624Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi KR, Schlichting RD, Sanders WH, Hiltunen MA (2011) Probabilistic model-driven recovery in distributed systems. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 8(6):913–928Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng J (2006) On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software. IEEE Trans Software Eng 32(4):240–259Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahl P, Chandra R, Greenberg A, Kandula S, Maltz D, Zhang M (2007) Towards highly reliable enterprise network services via inference of multi-level dependencies. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, Aug 2007Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Littlewood B, Popov P, Shryane N, Strigini L (2000) Modeling the effects of combining diverse software fault detection techniques. IEEE Trans Software Eng 26(12):1157–1167Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuo SY, Huang CY, Lyu MR (2001) Framework for modeling software reliability, using various testing-efforts and fault-detection rates. IEEE Trans Reliab 50(3):310–320Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qin F, Tucek J, Sundaresan J, Zhou Y (2005) Rx: treating bugs as allergies—a safe method to survive software failures. In: Proceedings of the symposium on operating systems principles (SOSP), pp 235–248Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    GeNIe, version 2.0. http://genie.sis.pitt.edu/

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.B P Poddar Institute of Management and TechnologyKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations