Knowledge-based system V and V in the Space Station Freedom program

Knowledge Based Systems (KBS's) are expected to be heavily used in the Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP). Although SSFP Verification and Validation (V&V) requirements are based on the latest state-of-the-practice in software engineering technology, they may be insufficient for Knowledge Based Systems (KBS's); it is widely stated that there are differences in both approach and execution between KBS V&V and conventional software V&V. In order to better understand this issue, we have surveyed and/or interviewed developers from sixty expert system projects in order to understand the differences and difficulties in KBS V&V. We have used this survey results to analyze the SSFP V&V requirements for conventional software in order to determine which specific requirements are inappropriate for KBS V&V and why they are inappropriate. Further work will result in a set of recommendations that can be used either as guidelines for applying conventional software V&V requirements to KBS's or as modifications to extend the existing SSFP conventional software V&V requirements to include KBS requirements. The results of this work are significant to many projects, in addition to SSFP, which will involve KBS's

Expert system verification and validation study. Phase 2: Requirements identification. Delivery 1: Updated survey report

The purpose is to report the state-of-the-practice in Verification and Validation (V and V) of Expert Systems (ESs) on current NASA and Industry applications. This is the first task of a series which has the ultimate purpose of ensuring that adequate ES V and V tools and techniques are available for Space Station Knowledge Based Systems development. The strategy for determining the state-of-the-practice is to check how well each of the known ES V and V issues are being addressed and to what extent they have impacted the development of Expert Systems

Expert system verification and validation survey. Delivery 3: Recommendations

The purpose is to determine the state-of-the-practice in Verification and Validation (V and V) of Expert Systems (ESs) on current NASA and Industry applications. This is the first task of a series which has the ultimate purpose of ensuring that adequate ES V and V tools and techniques are available for Space Station Knowledge Based Systems development. The strategy for determining the state-of-the-practice is to check how well each of the known ES V and V issues are being addressed and to what extent they have impacted the development of ESs

The Second NASA Formal Methods Workshop 1992

The primary goal of the workshop was to bring together formal methods researchers and aerospace industry engineers to investigate new opportunities for applying formal methods to aerospace problems. The first part of the workshop was tutorial in nature. The second part of the workshop explored the potential of formal methods to address current aerospace design and verification problems. The third part of the workshop involved on-line demonstrations of state-of-the-art formal verification tools. Also, a detailed survey was filled in by the attendees; the results of the survey are compiled

Expert system verification and validation survey, delivery 4

The purpose is to determine the state-of-the-practice in Verification and Validation (V and V) of Expert Systems (ESs) on current NASA and Industry applications. This is the first task of a series which has the ultimate purpose of ensuring that adequate ES V and V tools and techniques are available for Space Station Knowledge Based Systems development. The strategy for determining the state-of-the-practice is to check how well each of the known ES V and V issues are being addressed and to what extent they have impacted the development of ESs

Are Delayed Issues Harder to Resolve? Revisiting Cost-to-Fix of Defects throughout the Lifecycle

Many practitioners and academics believe in a delayed issue effect (DIE); i.e. the longer an issue lingers in the system, the more effort it requires to resolve. This belief is often used to justify major investments in new development processes that promise to retire more issues sooner. This paper tests for the delayed issue effect in 171 software projects conducted around the world in the period from 2006--2014. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study yet published on this effect. We found no evidence for the delayed issue effect; i.e. the effort to resolve issues in a later phase was not consistently or substantially greater than when issues were resolved soon after their introduction. This paper documents the above study and explores reasons for this mismatch between this common rule of thumb and empirical data. In summary, DIE is not some constant across all projects. Rather, DIE might be an historical relic that occurs intermittently only in certain kinds of projects. This is a significant result since it predicts that new development processes that promise to faster retire more issues will not have a guaranteed return on investment (depending on the context where applied), and that a long-held truth in software engineering should not be considered a global truism.Comment: 31 pages. Accepted with minor revisions to Journal of Empirical Software Engineering. Keywords: software economics, phase delay, cost to fi