A software trustworthiness evaluation model using objective weight based evidential reasoning approach

Knowledge and Information Systems

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 171-189

  Ding, Shuai ^a,b   Ma, Xi Jun ^a,b   Yang, Shan Lin ^a,b  

^a HEFEI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS   (China)

Author keywords

Evidential reasoning approach; MADA; Objective weighting; Software trustworthiness; Uncertainly evaluation

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EVIDENTIAL REASONING APPROACHES; MADA; OBJECTIVE WEIGHTING; SOFTWARE TRUSTWORTHINESS; UNCERTAINLY EVALUATION;

EID: 84867097194     PISSN: 02191377     EISSN: 02193116     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10115-011-0442-0     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anne I, Marko P (2007) Trustworthiness evaluation and testing of open source components. In: Proceeding of seventh international conference on quality software, vol 99. pp 316-321.
2. Avizienis A, Laprie JC, Randell B (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 1(1): 11-33.
3. Basili V, Donzelli P, Asgari S (2004) A unified model of dependability: capturing dependability in context. IEEE Softw 21(6): 19-25.
4. Chen TY, Li CH (2010) Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy measures: a comparative analysis. Inf Sci 180(21): 4207-4222.
5. Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GK et al (2009) Yang. Failure mode and effects analysis using a group-based evidential reasoning approach. Comput Oper Res 36: 1768-1779.
6. Chin KS, Yang JB, Lam J et al (2009) An evidential reasoning-interval based method for new product design assessment. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(1): 142-156.
7. Dai YS, Xie M, Ng SH (2007) Uncertainty analysis in software reliability modeling by Bayesian with maximum-entropy principle. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1): 781-795.
8. Delong TA, Smith DT, Johnson BW (2005) Dependability metrics to assess safety-critical systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 54(3): 498-505.
9. Dozelli P, Basili V (2006) A practical framework for eliciting and modeling system dependability requirements: experience from the NASA high dependability computing project. J Syst Softw 79(1): 107-119.
10. Fu C, Yang SL (2010) The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute group decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 206: 601-608.
11. Goscinski A, Brock M (2010) Toward dynamic and attribute based publication, discovery and selection for cloud computing. Future Gener Comput Syst 26(7): 947-970.
12. Hasselbring W, Reussner R (2006) Toward trustworthy software systems. IEEE Comput 39(4): 91-92.
13. Joe H, Reid N (2007) On the software reliability models of Jelinski-Moranda and Littlewood. IEEE Trans Reliab 34(3): 216-218.
14. Jung HW, Kim SG, Chung CS (2004) Measuring software product quality: a survey of ISO/IEC 9126. IEEE Softw 21(5): 88-92.
15. Khan KM, Han J (2003) A security characterization framework for trustworthy component based software systems. In: 27th IEEE annual international computer software and applications conference, pp 164-169.
16. Liu XB, Zhou M, Yang JB et al (2008) Assessment of strategic R& D projects for car manufacturers based on the evidential reasoning approach. Int J Comput Intell Syst 1(1): 24-49.
17. Ma YF, Zhang M (2008) A computation model of trustworthy degree. In: International symposium on intelligent information technology application workshops, pp 523-526.
18. Mei L, Xu YS (2003) An adaptive dependability model of component-based software. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 28(2): 10-14.
19. Pal NR, Bezdek JC, Hemasinha R (1993) Uncertainty measures for evidential reasoning II: a new measure of total uncertainty. Int J Approx Reason 8(1): 1-16.
20. Paul RA, Yen IL, Bastani F et al (2008) An ontology-based integrated assessment framework for high-assurance systems. In: The IEEE international conference on semantic computing, pp 386-393.
21. Poyhonen M, Hamalainen RP (2008) On the convergence of multiatrribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 189(1): 132-145.
22. Rao RV, Patel BK (2010) A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection. Mater Des 31(10): 4738-4747.
23. Razavi M, Aliee FS, Badie K (2011) An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes. Knowledge and information systems. doi: 10. 1007/s10115-010-0312-1.
24. Shen CX, Zhang HG, Wang HM (2010) Research on trusted computed and its development. Sci China-Series F Inf Sci 53(3): 405-433.
25. Shi HL, Ma J, Zou FY (2008) Software dependability evaluation model based on fuzzy theory. In: International conference on computer science and information technology, pp 102-106.
26. Steffen B, Wihelm H, Alexandra P et al (2008) Trustworthy software systems: a discussion of basic concepts and terminology. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes Arch 31(6): 1-18.
27. Tao F, Zhao DM, Zhang L (2010) Resource service optimal-selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy set and non-functionality QoS in manufacturing grid system. Knowl Inf Syst 25(1): 185-208.
28. Tokuno K, Yamada S (2003) Relationship between software availability measurement and the number of restorations with imperfect debugging. Comput Math Appl 46(7): 1155-1163.
29. Uzunov K, Nguyen T (2008) Dependability of software in airborne mission systems. Technical Report, DSTO-TR-2111, Defence Science and Technology Organization, Australian Government Department of Defence, http://dspace. dsto. defence. gov. au/dspace/bitstream/1947/9335/1/DSTO-TR-2111%20PR. pdf.
30. Voas J (2003) Trusted software's holy grail. Softw Qual J 11(1): 9-17.
31. Voas J, Payne J (2000) Dependability certification of software components. J Syst Softw 52(2): 165-172.
32. Wang HM, Tang YB, Yin G et al (2006) Trustworthiness of internet-based software. Sci China-Series F Inf Sci 49(6): 759-773.
33. Wang TC, Lee HD (2009) Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl 36(5): 8980-8985.
34. Water JG (2000) Software dependability evaluation based on Markov usage models. Perform Eval 40(4): 199-222.
35. Wei GW (2010) Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. Knowl Inf Syst 25(3): 623-634.
36. Whitworth B, Fjermestad J, Mahinda D (2006) The web of system performance. Commun ACM 49(5): 93-99.
37. Xu WH, Zhang XY, Zhong JM et al (2009) Attribute reduction in ordered information systems based on evidence theory. Knowl Inf Syst 25(1): 169-184.
38. Yager RR (1983) Entropy and specificity in a mathematical theory of evidence. Int J Gen Syst 9(4): 249-260.
39. Yang JB (2001) Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision under uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 131(1): 31-61.
40. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainly. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(1): 1-18.
41. Yang JB, Xu DL (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainly. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 32(3): 289-304.
42. Yang JB, Wang YM, Xu DL et al (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 171(1): 309-343.
43. Zhang Y, Fang B, Xu CY (2008) Trustworthy metrics models for internetware. Wuhan University J Nat Sci 13(5): 547-552.