access icon free Reliability evaluation of UML/DAM software architectures under parameter uncertainty

Model-based evaluation of software reliability in the architecture design stage helps designers make objective decisions about design trade-offs. A challenging problem is how to deal with uncertainties in model parameters, e.g. usage profile. In this study, an approach based on evidence theory is proposed to handle the uncertainties in model parameters. In this approach, UML is used for modelling software architectures, and the DAM profile is used for specifying reliability parameters in the UML model. The constructed UML/DAM model is transformed to a fault tree to evaluate reliability. A software tool is developed to automate the transformation and evaluation procedures, and a case study is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the method.

Inspec keywords: software tools; Unified Modeling Language; dams; software reliability; reliability; software architecture; fault trees

Other keywords: design trade-offs; evidence theory; UML/DAM software architectures; UML/DAM model; reliability parameters; UML model; software reliability; usage profile; architecture design stage; model parameters; DAM profile; software tool; reliability evaluation; parameter uncertainty; modelling software architectures; objective decisions

Subjects: Software engineering techniques; Other topics in statistics

References

    1. 1)
      • 8. Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: ‘A dependability profile within MARTE’, Softw. Syst. Model., 2011, 10, (3), pp. 313336.
    2. 2)
      • 10. Khosravi, F., Muller, M., Glas, M., et al: ‘Uncertainty-aware reliability analysis and optimization’. Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conf. Exhibition, 2015, pp. 97102.
    3. 3)
      • 11. Jewell, W.S.: ‘Bayesian extensions to a basic model of software reliability’, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 1985, SE-11, (12), pp. 14651471.
    4. 4)
      • 22. Sentz, K., Ferson, S.: ‘Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory’, 2002.
    5. 5)
      • 7. Devaraj, A., Mishra, K., Trivedi, K. S.: ‘Uncertainty popagation in analytic availability models’. Proc. IEEE Symp. Reliability Distributed Systems, New Delhi, India, 2010, pp. 121130.
    6. 6)
      • 16. Goseva-Popstojanova, K., Kamavaram, S.: ‘Assessing uncertainty in reliability of component-based software systems’. 14th Int. Symp. Software Reliability Engineering, Denver, CO, USA, 2003, pp. 307320.
    7. 7)
      • 18. Limburg, P.: ‘Dependability modelling under uncertainty’ (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008).
    8. 8)
      • 3. Roshandel, R., Medvidovic, N., Golubchik, L.: ‘A Bayesian model for predicting reliability of software systems at the architectural level’, in Overhage, S., Szyperski, C.A., Reussner, R., et al (Eds.): ‘Software architectures, components, and applications’ (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007), pp. 108126.
    9. 9)
      • 5. Meedeniya, I., Aleti, A., Grunske, L.: ‘Architecture-driven reliability optimization with uncertain model parameters’, J. Syst. Softw., 2012, 85, (10), pp. 23402355.
    10. 10)
      • 9. Franco, J.M., Barbosa, R., Zenha-Rela, M.: ‘Automated reliability prediction from formal architectural descriptions’. Proc. Conf. Software Architecture, Helsinki, Finland, 2012, pp. 302309.
    11. 11)
      • 14. Utkin, L.V., Coolen, F.P.: ‘Imprecise reliability: an introductory overview’, in Levitin, G. (Ed.): ‘Computational intelligence in reliability engineering’ (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007), pp. 261306.
    12. 12)
      • 29. Pham, T.-T., Défago, X., Huynh, Q.-T.: ‘Reliability prediction for component-based software systems: dealing with concurrent and propagating errors’, Sci. Comput. Program., 2014, 97, pp. 426457.
    13. 13)
      • 27. Gérard, S., Dumoulin, C., Tessier, P., et al: ‘19 papyrus: a UML2 tool for domain-specific language modeling’, in Giese, H., Karsai, G., Lee, E. (Eds.): ‘Model-based engineering of embedded real-time systems’ (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 361368.
    14. 14)
      • 25. PLASTIC IST STREP Project: ‘Deliverable D2.2: graphical design language and tools for resource-aware adaptable components and services(PLASTIC, 2007).
    15. 15)
      • 21. Shafer, G.: ‘A mathematical theory of evidence’ (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976).
    16. 16)
      • 13. Filieri, A., Ghezzi, C., Grassi, V., et al: ‘Reliability analysis of component-based systems with multiple failure modes’, in Grunske, L., Reussner, R., Plasil, F. (Eds.): ‘Component-based software engineering’ (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 120.
    17. 17)
      • 1. Di Noia, T., Mongiello, M., Straccia, U.: ‘Fuzzy description logics for component selection in software design’. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering Formal Methods, York, UK, 2015, pp. 228239.
    18. 18)
      • 6. Meedeniya, L., Moser, I., Aleti, A., et al: ‘Evaluating probabilistic models with uncertain model parameters’, Softw. Syst. Model., 2014, 13, (4), pp. 121.
    19. 19)
      • 26. ‘SQME Tool Web Page’, Available at http://twcl.iust.ac.ir/projects/sqme.html.
    20. 20)
      • 19. Yager, R.R., Alajlan, N.: ‘Dempster-Shafer belief structures for decision making under uncertainty’, Knowl.-Based Syst., 2015, 80, pp. 5866.
    21. 21)
      • 17. Goseva-Popstojanova, K., Kamavaram, S.: ‘Software reliability estimation under uncertainty: generalization of the method of moments’. Proc. 8th IEEE Symp. High Assurance Systems Engineering, Tampa, FL, USA, 2004, pp. 209218.
    22. 22)
      • 12. Dai, Y.-S., Xie, M., Long, Q., et al: ‘Uncertainty analysis in software reliability modeling by Bayesian analysis with maximum-entropy principle’, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 2007, 33, (11), pp. 781795.
    23. 23)
      • 28. Klir, G.J.: ‘Uncertainty and information: foundations of generalized information theory’ (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2005).
    24. 24)
      • 4. Pham, T.-T., Defago, X.: ‘Reliability prediction for component-based software systems with architectural-level fault tolerance mechanisms’. Proc. Int. Conf. Availability, Reliability and Security, Regensburg, Germany, 2013, pp. 1120.
    25. 25)
      • 30. Fiondella, L., Rajasekaran, S., Gokhale, S.S.: ‘Efficient software reliability analysis with correlated component failures’, IEEE Trans. Reliab., 2013, 62, (1), pp. 244255.
    26. 26)
      • 23. Ferson, S., Hajagos, J., Berleant, D., et al: ‘Dependence in probabilistic modeling, Dempster-Shafer theory, and probability bounds analysis’ (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 2004).
    27. 27)
      • 15. Liu, B.: ‘Why is there a need for uncertainty theory?’, J. Uncertain Syst., 2012, 6, (1), pp. 310.
    28. 28)
      • 24. Ramamoorthy, C.V., Ho, G.S., Han, Y.W.: ‘Fault tree analysis of computer systems’. Proc. National Computer Conf., Dallas, TX, USA, 1977, pp. 1317.
    29. 29)
      • 20. Sun, L., Srivastava, R.P., Mock, T.J.: ‘An information systems security risk assessment model under Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions’, Manag. Inf. Syst., 2006, 22, (4), pp. 109142.
    30. 30)
      • 2. Pai, G.D., Dugan, J.B.: ‘Automatic synthesis of dynamic fault trees from UML system models’. Proc. Int. Symp. Software Reliability Engineering, Annapolis, MD, USA, 2002, pp. 243254.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0077
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0077
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading