Analysis of Software Trustworthiness Based on FAHP-CRITIC Method

doi:10.1007/s12204-022-2496-4

Abstract

Abstract: Software trustworthiness includes many attributes. Reasonable weight allocation of trustworthy attributes plays a key role in the software trustworthiness measurement. In practical application, attribute weight usually comes from experts’ evaluation to attributes and hidden information derived from attributes. Therefore, when the weight of attributes is researched, it is necessary to consider weight from subjective and objective aspects. First, a novel weight allocation method is proposed by combining the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) method and the criteria importance though intercrieria correlation (CRITIC) method. Second, based on the weight allocation method, the trustworthiness measurement models of component-based software are established according to the seven combination structures of components. Third, the model reasonability is verified via proving some metric criteria. Finally, a case is carried out. According to the comparison with other models, the result shows that the model has the advantage of utilizing hidden information fully and analyzing the combination of components effectively. It is an important guide for measuring the trustworthiness measurement of component-based software.

Key words: trustworthiness, weight, component-based software, measurement

摘要： 软件可信性包括多个属性。可信属性权重的合理分配在软件可信度度量中起着关键作用。实际应用中，属性权重通常来自于专家对属性的评价以及属性中隐含的信息。因此，在研究属性权重时，需要从主观和客观两个方面来考虑权重。首先，将模糊层次分析（FAHP）与 CRITIC方法相结合，本文提出一种新的权重分配方法。其次，基于权重分配方法，根据组件的七种组合结构，建立基于组件的软件可信度度量模型; 再次，通过证明度量模型满足一些代数性质，验证模型的合理性。最后，列举案例进行实例分析。通过与其他模型的比较，结果表明了该模型充分利用隐藏信息并对组件进行组合分析，为验证软件可信度度量提供了参考。

关键词: 可信性，权重，构件化软件，度量

CLC Number:

TP311.5

GAO Xiaotong1¹ (高晓彤), MA Yanfang^1，2* (马艳芳), ZHOU Wei¹ 周伟). Analysis of Software Trustworthiness Based on FAHP-CRITIC Method[J]. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ Sci, 2024, 29(3): 588-600.

References

[1] LO D, CHENG H, HAN J W, et al. Classification of software behaviors for failure detection: A discriminative pattern mining approach [C]//15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Paris: ACM, 2009: 557-566.
[2] HE J F, SHAN Z G, WANG J, et al. Review of the achievements of major research plan on “Trustworthy Software” [J]. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China, 2018, 32(3): 291-296 (in Chinese).
[3] TAO H W, CHEN Y X, WU H Y, et al. A survey of software trustworthiness measurements [J]. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 2019, 15(9): 2364.
[4] TAO H W, CHEN Y X. A survey of software trustworthiness measurement validation [J]. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 2018, 14(9): 2056-2065.
[5] CAI S, ZOU Y, SHAO L, et al. Framework supporting software assets evaluation on trustworthiness [J]. Journal of Software, 2010, 21(2): 359-372 (in Chinese).
[6] TAO H W, CHEN Y X. A metric model for trustworthiness of softwares [C]//2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. Milan: IEEE, 2009: 69-72.
[7] MA Y J, CHEN Y X, GU B. An attributes-based allocation approach of software trustworthy degrees [C]//2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security - Companion. Vancouver: IEEE, 2015: 89-94.
[8] CHU Y T, SUN L Y, LI L J. Lightweight scheme selection for automotive safety structures using a quantifi-able multi-objective approach [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 241: 118316.
[9] WANG B H, CHEN Y X, ZHANG S, et al. Updating model of software component trustworthiness based on users feedback [J]. IEEE Access, 2019, 7: 60199-60205.
[10] ZHOU W, MA Y F, PAN H, et al. A novel trustworthiness measurement model based on weight and user feedback [J]. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 2022, 31(4): 630-643.
[11] TAO H W, WU H Y, CHEN Y X. An approach of trustworthy measurement allocation based on subattributes of software [J]. Mathematics, 2019, 7(3): 237.
[12] WANG D X, WANG Q. Trustworthiness evidence supporting evaluation of software process trustworthiness [J]. Journal of Software, 2018, 29(11): 3412-3434 (in Chinese).
[13] TIAN J F, GUO Y H. Software trustworthiness evaluation model based on a behaviour trajectory matrix [J]. Information and Software Technology, 2020, 119: 106233.
[14] TIWARI U K, KUMAR S, MATTA P. Executionhistory based reliability estimation for componentbased software: Considering reusability-ratio and interaction-ratio [J]. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2020, 11(5): 1003-1019.
[15] MALIK P, NAUTIYAL L, RAM M. A method for considering error propagation in reliability estimation of component-based software systems [J]. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 2019, 4(3): 635-653.
[16] BURES T, HNETYNKA P, PLASIL F. SOFA 2.0: Balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model [C]//Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. Seattle: IEEE, 2006: 40-48.
[17] BRUNETON E, COUPAYE T, LECLERCQ M, et al. The FRACTAL component model and its support in Java: Experiences with Auto-adaptive and Reconfigurable Systems [J]. Software: Practice and Experience, 2006, 36: 1257-1284.
[18] ATKINSON C, PAECH B, REINHOLD J, et al. Developing and applying component-based model-driven architectures in Kobra [C]//Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. Seattle: IEEE, 2001: 212-223.
[19] MOHAMMAD M, ALAGAR V. A formal approach for the specification and verification of trustworthy component-based systems [J]. Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(1): 77-104.
[20] LU T, LIU C, DUAN H, et al. Mining componentbased software behavioral models using dynamic analysis [J]. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 68883-68894.
[21] WANG M Y, MA Y F, LI G R, et al. Multi-value models for allocation of software component development costs based on trustworthiness [J]. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 122673-122684.
[22] GAO X T, MA Y F, ZHOU W. The trustworthiness measurement model of component-based software based on the subjective and objective weight allocation method [C]//2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion. Hainan: IEEE, 2021: 478-486.
[23] DA?GDEVIREN M, Y¨UKSEL˙I. Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behaviorbased safety management [J]. Information Sciences, 2008, 178(6): 1717-1733.
[24] ZHANG X, WANG X, LI T, et al. Trade-off costs of software non-functional requirements [J]. Journal of Software, 2017, 28(5): 1247-1270 (in Chinese).
[25] DIAKOULAKI D, MAVROTAS G, PAPAYANNAKIS L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method [J]. Computers & Operations Research, 1995, 22(7): 763-770.
[26] WANG B H, ZHANG S. A subjective and objective integration approach of determining weights for trustworthy measurement [J]. IEEE Access, 2018, 6: 25829-25835.
[27] GAO J Z, TSAO J, WU Y. Testing and quality assurance for component-based software [M]. London: Artech House Publishers, 2003.
[28] TAO H W, CHEN Y X. Another metric model for trustworthiness of softwares based on partition [M]//Quantitative logic and soft computing 2010. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010: 695-705.
[29] HUANG D J. Component-based software trustworthiness measurement and allocation model [D]. Huaibei: Huaibei Normal University, 2019 (in Chinese).
[30] WANG X M, ZHANG C H. An improved software development model: Combination model [J]. Software Guide, 2018, 17(11): 52-55 (in Chinese).