Software Verification and System Assurance
- 1 January 2009
- conference paper
- conference paper
- Published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Abstract
Littlewood introduced the idea that software may be possibly perfect and that we can contemplate its probability of (im)perfection. We review this idea and show how it provides a bridge between correctness, which is the goal of software verification (and especially formal verification), and the probabilistic properties such as reliability that are the targets for system-level assurance. We enumerate the hazards to formal verification, consider how each of these may be countered, and propose relative weightings that an assessor may employ in assigning a probability of perfection.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' ProbabilitiesPublished by Wiley ,2006
- A note on inconsistent axioms in Rushby's "systematic formal verification for fault-tolerant time-triggered algorithms"IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2006
- Alternative representations of epistemic uncertaintyReliability Engineering & System Safety, 2004
- Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprisesReliability Engineering & System Safety, 2002
- The use of proof in diversity argumentsIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2000
- Reliability estimation from appropriate testing of plant protection softwareSoftware Engineering Journal, 1995
- Validation of ultrahigh dependability for software-based systemsCommunications of the ACM, 1993
- The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time softwareIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1993
- An experimental evaluation of software redundancy as a strategy for improving reliabilityIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1991
- An experimental evaluation of the assumption of independence in multiversion programmingIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1986