CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Multi-Criteria Decision MakingSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

An Evidential Software Risk Evaluation Model

Open access
Chen, Xingyuan, Deng, Yong·2022·Mathematics
DOI 10.3390/math10132325
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Software risk management is an important factor in ensuring software quality. Therefore, software risk assessment has become a significant and challenging research area. The aim of this study is to establish a data-driven software risk assessment model named DDERM. In the proposed model, experts’ risk assessments of probability and severity can be transformed into basic probability assignments (BPAs). Deng entropy was used to measure the uncertainty of the evaluation and to calculate the criteria weights given by experts. In addition, the adjusted BPAs were fused using the rules of Dempster–Shafer evidence theory (DST). Finally, a risk matrix was used to get the risk priority. A case application demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method. The proposed risk modeling framework is a novel approach that provides a rational assessment structure for imprecision in software risk and is applicable to solving similar risk management problems in other domains.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/math10132325

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 76 · Cited by 57

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Fedushko, 2019, Medical card data imputation and patient psychological and behavioral profile construction, Procedia Comput. Sci., 160, 354, 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.080 · DOI
  2. Pawade, 2016, RAY: An App for Determining Decision-Making Power of a Person, I-Manag. J. Mob. Appl. Technol., 3, 33
  3. Fedushko, S., and Ustyianovych, T. (2020, January 21–22). Operational Intelligence Software Concepts for Continuous Healthcare Monitoring and Consolidated Data Storage Ecosystem. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science, Engineering and Education Applications, Kiev, Ukraine. · DOI
  4. Triantafyllou, 2014, Reliability Properties of (n, f, k) Systems, IEEE Trans. Reliab., 63, 357, 10.1109/TR.2014.2299495 · DOI
  5. Triantafyllou, I.S. (2020). On the Consecutive k1 and k2-out-of-n Reliability Systems. Mathematics, 8. · DOI
  6. Boehm, B. (1989, January 11–15). Software risk management. Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. · DOI
  7. Verdon, 2004, Risk analysis in software design, IEEE Secur. Priv., 2, 79, 10.1109/MSP.2004.55 · DOI
  8. Hu, 2013, An integrative framework for intelligent software project risk planning, Decis. Support Syst., 55, 927, 10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.029 · DOI
  9. Fan, 2004, BBN-based software project risk management, J. Syst. Softw., 73, 193, 10.1016/j.jss.2003.12.032 · DOI
  10. Hu, 2013, Software project risk analysis using Bayesian networks with causality constraints, Decis. Support Syst., 56, 439, 10.1016/j.dss.2012.11.001 · DOI
  11. Odzaly, 2018, Agile risk management using software agents, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., 9, 823, 10.1007/s12652-017-0488-2 · DOI
  12. Li, X., Jiang, Q., Hsu, M.K., and Chen, Q. (2019). Support or risk? Software project risk assessment model based on rough set theory and backpropagation neural network. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  13. Filippetto, 2021, A risk prediction model for software project management based on similarity analysis of context histories, Inf. Softw. Technol., 131, 106497, 10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106497 · DOI
  14. Authority, 2014, Guidance on expert knowledge elicitation in food and feed safety risk assessment, EFSA J., 12, 3734
  15. Bolger, F. (2018). The selection of experts for (probabilistic) expert knowledge elicitation. Elicitation, Springer. · DOI
  16. 2019, Expert knowledge elicitation: Subjective but scientific, Am. Stat., 73, 69, 10.1080/00031305.2018.1518265 · DOI
  17. Yazdi, M., and Zarei, E. (2022). Step Forward on How to Treat Linguistic Terms in Judgment in Failure Probability Estimation. Linguistic Methods Under Fuzzy Information in System Safety and Reliability Analysis, Springer. · DOI
  18. Zadeh, L.A. (1996). Fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems: Selected Papers by Lotfi a Zadeh, World Scientific. · DOI
  19. Xiao, 2021, CaFtR: A Fuzzy Complex Event Processing Method, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 24, 1098, 10.1007/s40815-021-01118-6 · DOI
  20. Dempster, A.P. (2008). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, Springer. · DOI
  21. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press. · DOI
  22. Deng, 2016, Deng entropy, Chaos Solitons Fractals, 91, 549, 10.1016/j.chaos.2016.07.014 · DOI
  23. Garvey, 1998, Risk matrix: An approach for identifying, assessing, and ranking program risks, Air Force J. Logist., 22, 18
  24. Song, 2019, Divergence-based cross entropy and uncertainty measures of Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets with their application in decision making, Appl. Soft Comput., 84, 105703, 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105703 · DOI
  25. Song, 2022, Classifying vaguely labeled data based on evidential fusion, Inf. Sci., 583, 159, 10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.005 · DOI
  26. Khalaj, M., and Khalaj, F. (2021). An improvement decision-making method by similarity and belief function theory. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis. · DOI
  27. Zhang, 2021, Cluster-based information fusion for probabilistic risk analysis in complex projects under uncertainty, Appl. Soft Comput., 104, 107189, 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107189 · DOI
  28. Li, 2018, Generalized Ordered Propositions Fusion Based on Belief Entropy, Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control, 13, 792, 10.15837/ijccc.2018.5.3244 · DOI
  29. Su, 2018, Research on the fusion of dependent evidence based on mutual information, IEEE Access, 6, 71839, 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2882545 · DOI
  30. Moral-García, S., and Abellán, J. (2021). Required mathematical properties and behaviors of uncertainty measures on belief intervals. Int. J. Intell. Syst., 36. · DOI
  31. Ghosh, 2021, iDCR: Improved Dempster Combination Rule for multisensor fault diagnosis, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 104, 104369, 10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104369 · DOI
  32. Wang, 2022, A novel fault diagnosis method of smart grids based on memory spiking neural P systems considering measurement tampering attacks, Inf. Sci., 596, 520, 10.1016/j.ins.2022.03.013 · DOI
  33. Fan, 2021, Application of an information fusion scheme for rolling element bearing fault diagnosis, Meas. Sci. Technol., 32, 075013, 10.1088/1361-6501/abf9d6 · DOI
  34. Song, X., and Xiao, F. (2022). Combining time-series evidence: A complex network model based on a visibility graph and belief entropy. Applied Intelligence, Springer. · DOI
  35. Bezerra, E.D.C., Teles, A.S., Coutinho, L.R., and da Silva e Silva, F.J. (2021). Dempster–Shafer Theory for Modeling and Treating Uncertainty in IoT Applications Based on Complex Event Processing. Sensors, 21. · DOI
  36. Elmore, 2017, Dempster–Shafer approach to temporal uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., 1, 316, 10.1109/TETCI.2017.2719711 · DOI
  37. Deng, 2022, Random Permutation Set, Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control, 17, 4542, 10.15837/ijccc.2022.1.4542 · DOI
  38. Shams, G., Hatefi, S.M., and Nemati, S. (2022). A Dempster-Shafer evidence theory for environmental risk assessment in failure modes and effects analysis of Oil and Gas Exploitation Plant. Sci. Iran. · DOI
  39. Hatefi, S.M., Basiri, M.E., and Tamošaitienė, J. (2019). An evidential model for environmental risk assessment in projects using dempster–shafer theory of evidence. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  40. Deng, 2020, Information Volume of Mass Function, Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control, 15, 3983, 10.15837/ijccc.2020.6.3983 · DOI
  41. Xiao, 2018, An improved method for combining conflicting evidences based on the similarity measure and belief function entropy, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 20, 1256, 10.1007/s40815-017-0436-5 · DOI
  42. Xiong, 2021, Conflicting evidence combination from the perspective of networks, Inf. Sci., 580, 408, 10.1016/j.ins.2021.08.088 · DOI
  43. Chen, 2020, Emergency alternative evaluation under group decision makers: A new method based on entropy weight and DEMATEL, Int. J. Syst. Sci., 51, 570, 10.1080/00207721.2020.1723731 · DOI
  44. Gao, X., Su, X., Qian, H., and Pan, X. (2021). Dependence assessment in Human Reliability Analysis under uncertain and dynamic situations. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Elsevier. · DOI
  45. Ni, 2010, Some extensions on risk matrix approach, Saf. Sci., 48, 1269, 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.005 · DOI
  46. Ruan, 2015, Risk matrix integrating risk attitudes based on utility theory, Risk Anal., 35, 1437, 10.1111/risa.12400 · DOI
  47. Jianxing, 2021, A novel risk matrix approach based on cloud model for risk assessment under uncertainty, IEEE Access, 9, 27884, 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3058392 · DOI
  48. Wen, 2021, The fractal dimension of complex networks: A review, Inf. Fusion, 73, 87, 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.02.001 · DOI
  49. Xie, D., Xiao, F., and Pedrycz, W. (2021). Information Quality for Intuitionistic Fuzzy Values with Its Application in Decision Making. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier. · DOI
  50. Wang, Z., Xiao, F., and Ding, W. (2022). Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Jenson-Shannon divergence and its application in multi-attribute decision making. Applied Intelligence, Springer. · DOI
  51. Xiao, 2021, A distance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern classification problems, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 51, 3980, 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2958635 · DOI
  52. Babajanyan, 2020, Energy and entropy: Path from game theory to statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 043055, 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043055 · DOI
  53. Cheong, 2019, Paradoxical survival: Examining the parrondo effect across biology, BioEssays, 41, 1900027, 10.1002/bies.201900027 · DOI
  54. Pawade, 2021, Analyzing the Impact of Search Engine Optimization Techniques on Web Development Using Experiential and Collaborative Learning Techniques, Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci., 2, 1, 10.5815/ijmecs.2021.02.01 · DOI
  55. Wang, 2022, Resilience-oriented optimal post-disruption reconfiguration for coupled traffic-power systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 222, 108408, 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108408 · DOI
  56. Khalaj, F., and Khalaj, M. (2020). Developed cosine similarity measure on belief function theory: An application in medical diagnosis. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis. · DOI
  57. Xiao, F. (2021). CEQD: A complex mass function to predict interference effects. IEEE Trans. Cybern. · DOI
  58. Yan, Z., Zhao, H., and Mei, X. (2021). An improved conflicting-evidence combination method based on the redistribution of the basic probability assignment. Applied Intelligence, Springer. · DOI
  59. Cheng, 2021, A distance for belief functions of orderable set, Pattern Recognit. Lett., 145, 165, 10.1016/j.patrec.2021.02.010 · DOI
  60. Cui, 2022, Belief entropy-of-entropy and its application in the cardiac interbeat interval time series analysis, Chaos Solitons Fractals, 155, 111736, 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111736 · DOI
  61. Khalaj, 2020, New definition of the cross entropy based on the Dempster-Shafer theory and its application in a decision-making process, Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods, 49, 909, 10.1080/03610926.2018.1554123 · DOI
  62. Gao, 2022, A generalized divergence of information volume and its applications, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 108, 104584, 10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104584 · DOI
  63. Balakrishnan, 2022, A unified formulation of entropy and its application, Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl., 569, 127214, 10.1016/j.physa.2022.127214 · DOI
  64. Song, Y., and Deng, Y. (2021). Entropic explanation of power set. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control, 16. · DOI
  65. Qiang, C., Deng, Y., and Cheong, K.H. (2022). Information fractal dimension of mass function. Fractals. · DOI
  66. Kazemi, M.R., Tahmasebi, S., Buono, F., and Longobardi, M. (2021). Fractional deng entropy and extropy and some applications. Entropy, 23. · DOI
  67. Song, H., Wu, D., Li, M., Cai, C., and Li, J. (2010, January 23–25). An entropy based approach for software risk assessment: A perspective of trustworthiness enhancement. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Data Mining, Chengdu, China.
  68. Lee, 1996, Group decision making using fuzzy sets theory for evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software development, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 80, 261, 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00201-4 · DOI
  69. Sangaiah, 2018, Towards an efficient risk assessment in software projects–Fuzzy reinforcement paradigm, Comput. Electr. Eng., 71, 833, 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.07.022 · DOI
  70. Suresh, 2020, A novel fuzzy mechanism for risk assessment in software projects, Soft Comput., 24, 1683, 10.1007/s00500-019-03997-2 · DOI
  71. Hsieh, 2018, Risk assessment in new software development projects at the front end: A fuzzy logic approach, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., 9, 295, 10.1007/s12652-016-0372-5 · DOI
  72. Kumar, 2015, A probabilistic software risk assessment and estimation model for software projects, Procedia Comput. Sci., 54, 353, 10.1016/j.procs.2015.06.041 · DOI
  73. Iranmanesh, S.H., Khodadadi, S.B., and Taheri, S. (2009, January 6–9). Risk assessment of software projects using fuzzy inference system. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering, Troyes, France. · DOI
  74. Boehm, 1991, Software risk management: Principles and practices, IEEE Softw., 8, 32, 10.1109/52.62930 · DOI
  75. Triantafyllou, I.S. (2015). Reliability study of military operations: Methods and applications. Military Logistics, Springer. · DOI
  76. Koutras, 2016, Stochastic comparisons between lifetimes of reliability systems with exchangeable components, Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab., 18, 1081, 10.1007/s11009-014-9433-4 · DOI
  77. Lee, 1996, Applying fuzzy set theory to evaluate the rate of aggregative risk in software development, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 79, 323, 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00163-8 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Chen, X., & Deng, Y.
Affiliations
  • Kunming University (CN)
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Chen, Xingyuan
  • Deng, Yong
ORCID
Venue
Mathematics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-07-02
Volume
10
Issue
13
Pages
2325
ISSN
2227-7390 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/math10132325
OpenAlex
W4283793317
Cited by
57
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 13
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Mathematics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61973332)
  • JSPS Invitational Fellowships for Research in Japan (61973332)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Decision-Making Techniques
Keywords
software risk assessment, software risk management, Dempster-Shafer theory, mass function, Deng entropy, criteria weighting, evidence combination, risk matrix, risk priority, expert opinion, uncertainty quantification

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