The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Software Black Box: an alternative mechanism for failure analysis
Abstract
Learning from software failures is an essential step towards the development of more reliable software systems and processes. However, as more intricate software systems are developed, determining the nature and causes of a software failure becomes a great challenge. Although many existing techniques can help in understanding the nature of the failure, they are limited in some of the following aspects. First, they work only within controlled environments. Second, they have a major impact on the target system behavior. Third, they assume that a failure can be reproduced. Fourth, they lack enough support to carry out a structured failure analysis. The authors present the Software Black Box (SBB) as an alternative mechanism for failure investigation. The SBB is different from its predecessors in that it was specifically designed to be embedded in a target system and assist in the investigation of failures by reconstructing the events that lead to the failure. The SBB architecture is discussed, and a set of failure scenarios that reveal the SBB potential in assisting failure investigation is presented.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Weiser, M. (1984) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.1984.5010248 · Cited by 3,245
Graham, S. L., Kessler, P. B., & McKusick, M. K. (1982) · ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Compiler Construction · doi:10.1145/800230.806987 · Cited by 989
Agrawal, H., & Horgan, J. R. (1990) · ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI) · doi:10.1145/93542.93576 · Cited by 886
Anderson, J. M. L., Berc, L. M., Dean, J., et al. (1997) · ACM Transactions on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/265924.265925 · Cited by 483
Graham, S. L., Kessler, P. B., & McKusick, M. K. (1982) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/872726.806987 · Cited by 297
Optimally profiling and tracing programs
Ball, T., & Larus, J. R. (1992) · ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) · doi:10.1145/143165.143180 · Cited by 165
Optimal tracing and incremental reexecution for debugging long-running programs
Netzer, R. H. B., & Weaver, M. H. (1994) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/178243.178477 · Cited by 68
Monitoring and debugging of distributed real-time systems
Tsai, J. J. P., & Yang, S. (1995) · IEEE Computer Society Press eBooks · Cited by 63
The Quality of Numerical Software: Assessment and Enhancement
Boisvert, R. F. (1997) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-1-5041-2940-4_33 · Cited by 46
Balancing runtime and replay costs in a trace-and-replay system
Choi, J.-D., & Stone, J. M. (1991) · doi:10.1145/122759.122761 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- elbaum, 1998, CLIC Understanding Program Dynamics
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shneiderman, B. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3419764 · Cited by 768
A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Chamola, V., Hassija, V., Sulthana, A. R., Ghosh, D., Dhingra, D., & Sikdar, B. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294569 · Cited by 352
“digital assistants are additional possibilities [53], [61].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Elbaum, S., & Munson, J. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- ORCID
- Elbaum, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. ISSRE 2000
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2002-11-07
- Pages
- 365-376
- ISSN
- 1071-9458 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145813134
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings/Proceedings - International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Keywords
- software failure analysis, failure investigation, embedded monitoring, software reliability, failure scenarios, non-intrusive monitoring
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: Software Black Box: an alternative mechanism for failure analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/issre.2000.885887
- The paper
- Elbaum, S., & Munson, J. C. (2002). Software Black Box: an alternative mechanism for failure analysis. Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. ISSRE 2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/issre.2000.885887
