The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Software Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow
Abstract
Structured design methodologies provide a disciplined and organized guide to the construction of software systems. However, while the methodology structures and documents the points at which design decisions are made, it does not provide a specific, quantitative basis for making these decisions. Typically, the designers' only guidelines are qualitative, perhaps even vague, principles such as "functionality," "data transparency," or "clarity." This paper, like several recent publications, defines and validates a set of software metrics which are appropriate for evaluating the structure of large-scale systems. These metrics are based on the measurement of information flow between system components. Specific metrics are defined for procedure complexity, module complexity, and module coupling. The validation, using the source code for the UNIX operating system, shows that the complexity measures are strongly correlated with the occurrence of changes. Further, the metrics for procedures and modules can be interpreted to reveal various types of structural flaws in the design and implementation.
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
Ritchie, D. M., & Thompson, K. (1974) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361011.361061 · Cited by 826
Cited by
Quantitative analysis of faults and failures in a complex software system
Fenton, N. E., & Ohlsson, N. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.879815 · Cited by 699
The program dependence graph in a software development environment
Ottenstein, K. J., & Ottenstein, L. M. (1984) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/390011.808263 · Cited by 641
Predicting defects using network analysis on dependency graphs
Zimmermann, T., & Nagappan, N. (2008) · Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '08 · doi:10.1145/1368088.1368161 · Cited by 580
SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures
Kazman, R., Bass, L., Abowd, G. D., & Webb, M. (1994) · doi:10.5555/257734.257746 · Cited by 482
An enhanced neural network technique for software risk analysis
Neumann, D. E. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2002.1033229 · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Henry, S., & Kafura, D.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1981-09
- Volume
- SE-7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 510-518
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025043404
- Cited by
- 782
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 58.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.1981.231113
- The paper
- Henry, S., & Kafura, D. (1981). Software Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.1981.231113
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.