Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

P. Y. Chan 0002

dblp:54/3353 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1990
0009-0005-7126-2977ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
software reliability
0.021990
Recalibrating Software Reliability Models · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990
Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability Predictions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986
Software testing › software reliability › software reliability modeling
software reliability growth model
0.011990
Recalibrating Software Reliability Models · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1990
Software testing › software reliability
software reliability prediction
0.011986
Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability Predictions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1986

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

u-plot · 0.0simulation · 0.0statistical model selection · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1990 Recalibrating Software Reliability Models
abstract
There is no universally applicable software reliability growth model which can be trusted to give accurate predictions of reliability in all circumstances. A technique of analyzing predictive accuracy called the u-plot allows a user to estimate the relationship between the predicted reliability and the true reliability. It is shown how this can be used to improve reliability predictions in a very general way by a process of recalibration. Simulation results show that the technique gives improved reliability predictions in a large proportion of cases. However, a user does not need to trust the efficacy of recalibration, since the new reliability estimates produced by the technique are truly predictive and their accuracy in a particular application can be judged using the earlier methods. The generality of this approach suggests its use whenever a software reliability model is used. Indeed, although this work arose from the need to address the poor performance of software reliability models, it is likely to have applicability in other areas such as reliability growth modeling for hardware.>
Sarah Brocklehurst, P. Y. Chan 0002, Bev Littlewood, John Snell
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2
1986 Evaluation of Competing Software Reliability Predictions
abstract
Different software reliability models can produce very different answers when called on to predict future reliability in a reliability growth context. Users need to know which, if any, of the competing predictions are trustworthy. Some techniques are presented which form the basis of a partial solution to this problem. Rather than attempting to decide which model is generally best, the approach adopted allows a user to decide on the most appropriate model for each application.
Abdallah A. Abdel-Ghaly, P. Y. Chan 0002, Bev Littlewood
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2