Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688917
Qiuying Li, Lei Luo, Jian Wang
Testing under the actual operational profile (OP) for high-reliability software can be expensive, time consuming or even infeasible in situations where performance of a system is dominated by infrequent but highly critical events. To solve this problem, testing using importance sampling was put forward for usage-based software reliability demonstration testing (SRDT). An extended research based on OP for software reliability growth testing (SRGT) is proposed. Firstly, the reinforced OP based on changing the probabilities of critical operations is suggested. Secondly, the principle of accelerated SRGT is proposed. Then an implementing framework is proposed. Finally, the accelerated method is applied on a software system. The experimental results indicate: compared with the growth testing approach based on original OP, the accelerated growth testing approach based on the reinforced OP can not only significantly decrease the required testing time and the required test cases, but also obtain the same testing conclusion and the unbiased estimation result.
{"title":"Accelerated reliability testing approach for high-reliablity software based on the reinforced operational profile","authors":"Qiuying Li, Lei Luo, Jian Wang","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688917","url":null,"abstract":"Testing under the actual operational profile (OP) for high-reliability software can be expensive, time consuming or even infeasible in situations where performance of a system is dominated by infrequent but highly critical events. To solve this problem, testing using importance sampling was put forward for usage-based software reliability demonstration testing (SRDT). An extended research based on OP for software reliability growth testing (SRGT) is proposed. Firstly, the reinforced OP based on changing the probabilities of critical operations is suggested. Secondly, the principle of accelerated SRGT is proposed. Then an implementing framework is proposed. Finally, the accelerated method is applied on a software system. The experimental results indicate: compared with the growth testing approach based on original OP, the accelerated growth testing approach based on the reinforced OP can not only significantly decrease the required testing time and the required test cases, but also obtain the same testing conclusion and the unbiased estimation result.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122868671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688903
Yuan Wei
Presents a collection of slides covering the following topics: what are SRGMs and what can they do; general SRGM process; current situations for SRGMs; assumptions and easy-made mistakes in SRGMs; and applications of SRGM.
{"title":"Use software reliability growth models wisely","authors":"Yuan Wei","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688903","url":null,"abstract":"Presents a collection of slides covering the following topics: what are SRGMs and what can they do; general SRGM process; current situations for SRGMs; assumptions and easy-made mistakes in SRGMs; and applications of SRGM.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116093587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688916
A. Ceccarelli, N. Silva
Aerospace development processes are regulated by hardware, software or system-level standards. These standards describe the phases of the life-cycle, and the techniques that guarantee or assess the safety of systems and components. Standards are mostly written independently one from the others, and despite major similarities, they also include several distinctions which force companies to apply different expertise, training, personnel and procedures for each of them. This increases the difficulty in adopting new or different standards, ultimately resulting in increased costs. This paper investigates the differences between relevant aerospace standards, namely, the standards investigated include ARP4754A/4761, DO-178B/C, DO-254, ED-153, FAA HBK006A, Galileo Software Standard (GSWS) and the ECSS series, through comparison of lifecycle and major requirements. Evidence is given of main commonalities between the standards, but also of several, non-negligible specificities, what make it more challenging to define a unique development process, and set of activities and competences required to achieve the standards compliance.
{"title":"Qualitative comparison of aerospace standards: An objective approach","authors":"A. Ceccarelli, N. Silva","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688916","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688916","url":null,"abstract":"Aerospace development processes are regulated by hardware, software or system-level standards. These standards describe the phases of the life-cycle, and the techniques that guarantee or assess the safety of systems and components. Standards are mostly written independently one from the others, and despite major similarities, they also include several distinctions which force companies to apply different expertise, training, personnel and procedures for each of them. This increases the difficulty in adopting new or different standards, ultimately resulting in increased costs. This paper investigates the differences between relevant aerospace standards, namely, the standards investigated include ARP4754A/4761, DO-178B/C, DO-254, ED-153, FAA HBK006A, Galileo Software Standard (GSWS) and the ECSS series, through comparison of lifecycle and major requirements. Evidence is given of main commonalities between the standards, but also of several, non-negligible specificities, what make it more challenging to define a unique development process, and set of activities and competences required to achieve the standards compliance.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125246021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688881
Michela Munoz
Our interest focuses on how to accurately represent the behavior of complex flight and ground systems by properly selecting the key attributes particularly when model-based techniques are increasingly used for their development. Can new tools and technologies be used in future missions starting at earlier phases to reduce risk? The objective is to demonstrate the use of the Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL, SAE AS5506/A) to analyze quality attributes of integrated flight and ground systems software architecture in the context of verification and validation activities. AADL modeling has been used to accurately represent the behavior of complex systems in space missions starting at earlier phases to reduce risk. AADL model shows execution interactions between high-level system components and it enables early quality attribute analyses. AADL adds rigor and formalism to development lifecycle and assurance activities and as a result it reduces possibility of rework later in lifecycle. Formal semantics provide confidence at gateway reviews, by providing independent, semantically accurate analyses. Provision of not just software or hardware assurance but system assurance; therefore, mission assurance. AADL modeling is applicable to real-time embedded software systems - the types of systems NASA builds. This research is directly applicable to NASA missions. AADL models offer a way to make better decisions on system architectures ! especially during development phase (SMAP mission-architectural decisions made during the early design impact) and as a result risk is reduced. Examples of ground and flight systems architectures applicable to NASA missions will be shown including SMAP and Juno missions. For the Critical Design Review (CDR) of the JPL SMAP mission, the AADL team updated the AADL model to reflect the nontrivial re-architecture of the SMAP flight software and avionics hardware. In the process, we completed the Information Flow model and performed Data Latency Analysis (The particular value of this analysis to SMAP was to help model the science collection and data downlink rate). We have shown that the detailed design of SMAP FSW is continually consistent with the software architecture model. The re-architecting to a different baseline is also a testament to the flexibility of the AADL modeling approach. To summarize, ! these are the performance analyses we have performed: Bus Bandwidth Analysis, Memory Resource Analysis, Deadlock Analysis (UPPAAL), Reachability Analysis (UPPAAL). Furthermore, analysis results show how some Juno command errors could have been avoided if the AADL model had been in place before the Juno instruments checkout activities. By modeling the Juno spacecraft and applying new tools, some errors could have been revealed in real time. Some of the analyses that were performed for the Juno mission included: end-to-end data flow and data latency that revealed where command errors can occur. Data generation and memory
{"title":"Space systems modeling using the Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL)","authors":"Michela Munoz","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688881","url":null,"abstract":"Our interest focuses on how to accurately represent the behavior of complex flight and ground systems by properly selecting the key attributes particularly when model-based techniques are increasingly used for their development. Can new tools and technologies be used in future missions starting at earlier phases to reduce risk? The objective is to demonstrate the use of the Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL, SAE AS5506/A) to analyze quality attributes of integrated flight and ground systems software architecture in the context of verification and validation activities. AADL modeling has been used to accurately represent the behavior of complex systems in space missions starting at earlier phases to reduce risk. AADL model shows execution interactions between high-level system components and it enables early quality attribute analyses. AADL adds rigor and formalism to development lifecycle and assurance activities and as a result it reduces possibility of rework later in lifecycle. Formal semantics provide confidence at gateway reviews, by providing independent, semantically accurate analyses. Provision of not just software or hardware assurance but system assurance; therefore, mission assurance. AADL modeling is applicable to real-time embedded software systems - the types of systems NASA builds. This research is directly applicable to NASA missions. AADL models offer a way to make better decisions on system architectures ! especially during development phase (SMAP mission-architectural decisions made during the early design impact) and as a result risk is reduced. Examples of ground and flight systems architectures applicable to NASA missions will be shown including SMAP and Juno missions. For the Critical Design Review (CDR) of the JPL SMAP mission, the AADL team updated the AADL model to reflect the nontrivial re-architecture of the SMAP flight software and avionics hardware. In the process, we completed the Information Flow model and performed Data Latency Analysis (The particular value of this analysis to SMAP was to help model the science collection and data downlink rate). We have shown that the detailed design of SMAP FSW is continually consistent with the software architecture model. The re-architecting to a different baseline is also a testament to the flexibility of the AADL modeling approach. To summarize, ! these are the performance analyses we have performed: Bus Bandwidth Analysis, Memory Resource Analysis, Deadlock Analysis (UPPAAL), Reachability Analysis (UPPAAL). Furthermore, analysis results show how some Juno command errors could have been avoided if the AADL model had been in place before the Juno instruments checkout activities. By modeling the Juno spacecraft and applying new tools, some errors could have been revealed in real time. Some of the analyses that were performed for the Juno mission included: end-to-end data flow and data latency that revealed where command errors can occur. Data generation and memory","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116252277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688912
Miki Masumoto, Tatsuya Tokuno, Shuichiro Yamamoto
Current agreements on levels of portal services have some problems. For example, defined levels of services are not well validated with evidences. It is necessary to provide a way to show the evidence that the service satisfies the expected levels. In this paper, we propose a method to assure the levels of service based on Non Functional Requirements and Assurance case. Service levels are represented by NFR grade index value. Assurance case is used to validate the service satisfies the expected Index values.
{"title":"A method for assuring service grade with Assurance case: An experiment on a portal service","authors":"Miki Masumoto, Tatsuya Tokuno, Shuichiro Yamamoto","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688912","url":null,"abstract":"Current agreements on levels of portal services have some problems. For example, defined levels of services are not well validated with evidences. It is necessary to provide a way to show the evidence that the service satisfies the expected levels. In this paper, we propose a method to assure the levels of service based on Non Functional Requirements and Assurance case. Service levels are represented by NFR grade index value. Assurance case is used to validate the service satisfies the expected Index values.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125081352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688863
H. Takamura
In this talk, we will explain our current status of international standardization activities in DEOS project.
在这次演讲中，我们将解释我们在DEOS项目中国际标准化活动的现状。
{"title":"International standardization of Open Systems Dependability","authors":"H. Takamura","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688863","url":null,"abstract":"In this talk, we will explain our current status of international standardization activities in DEOS project.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117103575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688892
Birgit Hofer, F. Wotawa
Spreadsheets are the most prominent example of end-user programming. Unfortunately, spreadsheets often contain faults. Spreadsheets can be very complex and can contain several thousand formula. Therefore, debugging of spreadsheets can be a frustrating job. In this paper, we explain how genetic programming can be used to automatically debug spreadsheets. Therefore, we adapt an automatic repair approach from the software debugging domain to the spreadsheet domain. In an initial empirical evaluation, we show that genetic programming can be used to debug spreadsheets: For more than 55% of the spreadsheets, genetic programming is able to find a repair.
{"title":"Mutation-based spreadsheet debugging","authors":"Birgit Hofer, F. Wotawa","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688892","url":null,"abstract":"Spreadsheets are the most prominent example of end-user programming. Unfortunately, spreadsheets often contain faults. Spreadsheets can be very complex and can contain several thousand formula. Therefore, debugging of spreadsheets can be a frustrating job. In this paper, we explain how genetic programming can be used to automatically debug spreadsheets. Therefore, we adapt an automatic repair approach from the software debugging domain to the spreadsheet domain. In an initial empirical evaluation, we show that genetic programming can be used to debug spreadsheets: For more than 55% of the spreadsheets, genetic programming is able to find a repair.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121571221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688874
Pete Rotella, Satyabrata Pradhan
One difficulty in characterizing the quality of a major feature release is that many releases are implemented on several platforms, with each platform using a different subset of the new features. Also, these platforms can have substantially different performance expectations and results. In order to characterize the entire release adequately in predictive models, we need a robust customer experience metric that is capable of representing many disparate platforms. Several multi-platform SWDPMH (software defects per million usage hours per month) variants have been developed in an attempt to anticipate a release's overall field quality. In addition to predicting the overall release quality, it is critical that we provide guidance to business units concerning remediation of releases predicted to not achieve adequate quality, and also provide guidance regarding how to modify practices so subsequent releases achieve adequate quality. Models have been developed to both predict MP-SWDPMH and to identify specific in-process drivers that likely influence MP-SWDPMH. At this time, these modeling results can be available as early as five or six months prior to release to the customers.
{"title":"Predicting multi-platform release quality","authors":"Pete Rotella, Satyabrata Pradhan","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688874","url":null,"abstract":"One difficulty in characterizing the quality of a major feature release is that many releases are implemented on several platforms, with each platform using a different subset of the new features. Also, these platforms can have substantially different performance expectations and results. In order to characterize the entire release adequately in predictive models, we need a robust customer experience metric that is capable of representing many disparate platforms. Several multi-platform SWDPMH (software defects per million usage hours per month) variants have been developed in an attempt to anticipate a release's overall field quality. In addition to predicting the overall release quality, it is critical that we provide guidance to business units concerning remediation of releases predicted to not achieve adequate quality, and also provide guidance regarding how to modify practices so subsequent releases achieve adequate quality. Models have been developed to both predict MP-SWDPMH and to identify specific in-process drivers that likely influence MP-SWDPMH. At this time, these modeling results can be available as early as five or six months prior to release to the customers.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117157226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688856
Shayan Eskandari, Wael Khreich, Syed Shariyar Murtaza, A. Hamou-Lhadj, Mario Couture
Host-based intrusion detection systems monitor systems in operation for significant deviations from normal (and healthy) behaviour. Many approaches have been proposed in the literature. Most of them, however, do not consider even the basic attack prevention mechanisms that are activated by default on today's many operating systems. Examples of such mechanisms include Address Space Layout Randomization and Data Execution Prevention. With such security methods in place, attackers are forced to perform additional actions to circumvent them. In this research, we conjecture that some of these actions may require the use of additional system calls. If so, one can trace such attacks to discover attack patterns that can later be used to enhance the detection power of anomaly detection systems. The purpose of this short paper is to motivate the need to investigate the impact of attack on system calls while trying to overcome these prevention mechanisms.
{"title":"Monitoring system calls for anomaly detection in modern operating systems","authors":"Shayan Eskandari, Wael Khreich, Syed Shariyar Murtaza, A. Hamou-Lhadj, Mario Couture","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688856","url":null,"abstract":"Host-based intrusion detection systems monitor systems in operation for significant deviations from normal (and healthy) behaviour. Many approaches have been proposed in the literature. Most of them, however, do not consider even the basic attack prevention mechanisms that are activated by default on today's many operating systems. Examples of such mechanisms include Address Space Layout Randomization and Data Execution Prevention. With such security methods in place, attackers are forced to perform additional actions to circumvent them. In this research, we conjecture that some of these actions may require the use of additional system calls. If so, one can trace such attacks to discover attack patterns that can later be used to enhance the detection power of anomaly detection systems. The purpose of this short paper is to motivate the need to investigate the impact of attack on system calls while trying to overcome these prevention mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132592683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688868
G. Walia, Jeffrey C. Carver
Problem Definition: Project managers manage the development process by enabling software developers to perform inspection of early software artifacts. However, an inspection can only detect the presence of defects; it cannot certify the absence of defects or indicate how many defects remain post inspection. Managers need objective information to help them decide when they can safely stop the inspection process. A reliable estimate of the number of defects remaining in software can aid mangers in determining whether there is a need for additional inspections.
{"title":"Using capture-recapture models to make objective post-inspection decisions","authors":"G. Walia, Jeffrey C. Carver","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688868","url":null,"abstract":"Problem Definition: Project managers manage the development process by enabling software developers to perform inspection of early software artifacts. However, an inspection can only detect the presence of defects; it cannot certify the absence of defects or indicate how many defects remain post inspection. Managers need objective information to help them decide when they can safely stop the inspection process. A reliable estimate of the number of defects remaining in software can aid mangers in determining whether there is a need for additional inspections.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131160883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：