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

Shirley Mills

dblp:55/3710 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1996
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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
1 paper
Software testing · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
random testing
0.011996
A Binary Markov Process Model for Random Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996
Software testing › software reliability
reliability estimation
0.011996
A Binary Markov Process Model for Random Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996
Software testing
software reliability
0.011996
A Binary Markov Process Model for Random Testing · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996

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

binomial distribution model · 0.0binary markov process · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1996 A Binary Markov Process Model for Random Testing
abstract
A binary Markov process model is proposed for the random testing of software. This model is suggested for replacing the standard binomial distribution model, which is based on the easily-violated assumption of test runs being statistically independent of each other. In addition to a general result on the probability of having any specific number of software failures during testing, practical implications of the new model are also discussed. In particular, we demonstrate that, in general, the effect of a possible correlation between test runs cannot be ignored in estimating software reliability.
Sanping Chen, Shirley Mills
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2