Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
John D. Musa
dblp:97/803
· DBLP profile ↗
22ranked-venue papers
17as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 21 · 16 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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
5 papers |
Software testing · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › non-functional testing
reliability testing |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Software-Reliability-Engineered Testing Practice (Tutorial) · ICSE 1997 |
Software testing
software reliability |
0.0 | 3 | 1984 | Criteria for Software Reliability Model Comparisons · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1984 A Logarithmic Poisson Execution Time Model for Software Reliability Measurement · ICSE 1984 A Theory of Software Reliability and Its Application · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1975 |
Software testing › software reliability
software reliability modeling |
0.0 | 3 | 1984 | Criteria for Software Reliability Model Comparisons · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1984 A Logarithmic Poisson Execution Time Model for Software Reliability Measurement · ICSE 1984 A Theory of Software Reliability and Its Application · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1975 |
Software testing › software reliability
software reliability measurement |
0.0 | 1 | 1978 | Measuring Reliability of Computer Center Software · ICSE 1978 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
stochastic modeling |
0.0 | 1 | 1984 | A Logarithmic Poisson Execution Time Model for Software Reliability Measurement · ICSE 1984 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking |
0.0 | 1 | 1978 | Measuring Reliability of Computer Center Software · ICSE 1978 |
Software testing › test process
test scheduling |
0.0 | 1 | 1975 | A Theory of Software Reliability and Its Application · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1975 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
logarithmic poisson execution time model · 0.0criteria definition · 0.0reliability measurement · 0.0maximum likelihood estimation · 0.0confidence interval · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | Teaching SRE to Software PractitionersabstractTeachers can learn many lessons by examining experiences in teaching SRE to software practitioners and analyzing their feedback. I have taught several thousand participants over 15 years in a wide variety of organizations and applications. Participants included software developers, testers, reliability and quality control staff, and managers. Most of what I've learned applies to any course and is not SRE-specific. It also applies to the practitioners of the future, university students John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 2005 | How Should Software Reliability Engineering Be Taught?
John D. Musa, Laurie A. Williams |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 2000 | Everything You Wanted to Know About Software Reliability Engineering but Didn't Know Who to Ask
John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 1999 | Developing More Reliable Software Faster and CheaperabstractThis paper outlines the nature of the standard, proven, widespread best practice of software reliability engineering (SRE). It is widely applicable, low in cost, and its implementation has virtually no schedule impact. SRE helps one develop and test more reliable software faster and cheaper. We show how it does this, and present some resources that will help one learn more about it. John D. Musa |
ICECCS | 1 |
| 1999 | Developing More Reliable Software Faster and Cheaper
John D. Musa |
ICECCS | 1 |
| 1999 | Software Reliability Engineering in Industry
John D. Musa |
SAFECOMP | 1 |
| 1998 | Panel: Everything You Wanted to Know About SRE But Didn't Know Who To Ask
Bill Everett, John D. Musa, Norman F. Schneidewind, Mladen A. Vouk, Claes Wohlin |
ISSRE | 2 |
| 1998 | Software reliability engineering for mobile codeabstractThis paper examines the nature of mobile code and compares it with past software, both in regard to similarities and differences. It then looks at how greater code mobility is likely to effect the practice of software reliability engineering (SRE). John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 1998 | Panel: Issues in the next generation of dependability standards
Norman F. Schneidewind, Jean-Claude Laprie, Allen P. Nikora, Michael R. Lyu, John D. Musa, Bill Everett |
ISSRE | 5 |
| 1997 | Software-Reliability-Engineered Testing Practice (Tutorial)abstractNo abstract available. John D. Musa |
ICSE | 1 |
| 1994 | Adjusting measured field failure intensity for operational profile variationabstractFailure intensity depends on the operational profile used in executing a system. Operational profiles can change, so we would like to determine the new failure intensity without the expense of actually reexecuting the system under the new operational profile. We derive a transformation for adjusting the failure intensity to the value it would have under the new operational profile. This transformation does not require that we measure operation failure intensities in the field, a requirement that would often be impractical to meet. It is only necessary to know the operational profile used in test; this information is used to estimate the operation failure intensities. The old and new field operational profiles and the estimated operation failure intensities are employed to determine the overall target failure intensity.> John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 1994 | Sensitivity of field failure intensity to operational profile errorsabstractSensitivity of field failure intensity estimates to operational profile occurrence probability errors is investigated. This is an important issue in software reliability engineering, because these estimates enter into many development decisions. Sensitivity was computed for 59,200 sets of conditions, spread over a wide range. For 99.4% of these points, the failure intensity was very robust with respect to occurrence probability errors, the error in failure intensity being more than a factor of 5 smaller than the occurrence probability error. Thus projects do not have to spend extra effort to obtain high precision in measuring the operational profile, nor do they need to worry about moderate changes in system usage with time.> John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 1993 | Panel: Field Failures And Reliability In Operation
Ram Chillarege, Ravishankar K. Iyer, Jean-Claude Laprie, John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 4 |
| 1992 | The operational profile in software reliability engineering: an overviewabstractProvides an overview of a step-by-step approach for developing the operational profile used in software reliability engineering. The operational profile can help guide managerial and engineering decisions throughout the product life cycle, including requirements specification, design, implementation and testing. It is particularly valuable in guiding test planning and testing. The development and use of this profile typically involves product and market managers and systems engineers. It is used by software developers and managers, system test planners and testers, and quality assurance and reliability engineers. The presented material has been drawn from experience in developing operational profiles for a variety of applications.> John D. Musa |
ISSRE | 1 |
| 1984 | A Logarithmic Poisson Execution Time Model for Software Reliability Measurement
John D. Musa, Kazuhira Okumoto |
ICSE | 1 |
| 1984 | A comparison of time domains for software reliability models
John D. Musa, Kazuhira Okumoto |
J. Syst. Softw. | 1 |
| 1984 | Criteria for Software Reliability Model ComparisonsabstractA set of criteria is proposed for the comparison of software reliability models. The intention is to provide a logically organized basis for determining the superior models and for the presentation of model characteristics. It is hoped that in the future, a software manager will be able to more easily select the model most suitable for his/her requirements from among the preferred ones. Anthony Iannino, John D. Musa, Kazuhira Okumoto, Bev Littlewood |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |
| 1983 | Guest Editorial: COMPSAC '81 Special Section
John D. Musa |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |
| 1980 | Software reliability measurement
John D. Musa |
J. Syst. Softw. | 1 |
| 1978 | The use of software reliability measures in project managementabstractThe execution time theory of software reliability developed by the author provides measures that offer promise as valuable tools in managing a software project. The measures furnish excellent current status indicators and permit schedule forecasts to be developed. The relationships among reliability, project completion date, project cost, and various resource parameters can be examined through simulation as an aid in making management decisions. Managers have indicated that the conceptual framework provided is valuable in understanding the testing process. Experience has been gained in the use of the theory on a number of projects. A program has been developed to handle most of the calculations. John D. Musa |
COMPSAC | 1 |
| 1978 | Measuring Reliability of Computer Center Software
Patricia A. Hamilton, John D. Musa |
ICSE | 2 |
| 1975 | A Theory of Software Reliability and Its ApplicationabstractThe theory permits the estimation, in advance of a project, of the amount of testing in terms of execution time required to achieve a specified reliability goal [stated as a mean time to failure (MTTF)]. Execution time can then be related to calendar time, permitting a schedule to be developed. Estimates of execution time and calendar time remaining until the reliability goal is attained can be continually remade as testing proceeds, based only on the length of the execution time intervals between failures. The current MTTF and the number of errors remaining can also be estimated. Maximum likelihood estimation is employed, and confidence intervals are also established. The foregoing information is obviously very valuable in scheduling and monitoring the progress of program testing. A program has been implemented to compute the foregoing quantities. The reliability model that has been developed can be used in making system tradeoffs involving software or software and hardware components. It also provides a soundly based unit of measure for the comparative evaluation of various programming techniques that are expected to enhance reliability. The model has been applied to four medium-sized software development projects, all of which have completed their life cycles. John D. Musa |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |