The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time software
Open accessAbstract
This work affirms that the quantification of life-critical software reliability is infeasible using statistical methods, whether these methods are applied to standard software or fault-tolerant software. The classical methods of estimating reliability are shown to lead to exorbitant amounts of testing when applied to life-critical software. Reliability growth models are examined and also shown to be incapable of overcoming the need for excessive amounts of testing. The key assumption of software fault tolerance-separately programmed versions fail independently-is shown to be problematic. This assumption cannot be justified by experimentation in the ultrareliability region, and subjective arguments in its favor are not sufficiently strong to justify it as an axiom. Also, the implications of the recent multiversion software experiments support this affirmation.>
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The N-Version Approach to Fault-Tolerant Software
Avizienis, A. (1985) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.1985.231893 · Cited by 1,049
An experimental evaluation of the assumption of independence in multiversion programming
Knight, J. C., & Leveson, N. G. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.1986.6312924 · Cited by 774
Software safety: why, what, and how
Leveson, N. G. (1986) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/7474.7528 · Cited by 471
On the use and the performance of software reliability growth models
Keiller, P. A., & Miller, D. R. (1991) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/0951-8320(91)90049-d · Cited by 73
Predicting software reliability
Bev Littlewood, A. (1989) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.1989.0007 · Cited by 33
Cited by
Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., Vul, E., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.167 · Cited by 1,410
Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An Interdisciplinary Challenge
Koopman, P., & Wagner, M. (2017) · IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine · doi:10.1109/mits.2016.2583491 · Cited by 688
Challenges in autonomous vehicle testing and validation
Koopman, P., & Wagner, M. (2016) · SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety · doi:10.4271/2016-01-0128 · Cited by 675
Autonomous Cars: Research Results, Issues, and Future Challenges
Hussain, R., & Zeadally, S. (2019) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2869360 · Cited by 631
Metadata
- Authors
- Butler, R. W., & Finelli, G. B.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-12
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097331548
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 57.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time software. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/32.210303
- The paper
- Butler, R. W., & Finelli, G. B. (1993). The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.210303
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
