10c–d shows the kinetics and energetics of the further O substitution step in the WS2 with one OS defect at the flipside near OS and the same side near OS. 10b, indicating the presence of OS defects will accelerate the oxidation process. It is important to understand the role of H2O in the formation of WS2 monolayer during growth. Here, we applied nudged elastic band (NEB) method44,45,46 to model the energy barrier of the sulfurization process with and without H2O. Therefore, there are W-O bonds at the edges (or the growth-front) of CVD-WS2. On the other hand, the edge of OHVPD-WS2 possibly contains W-OH bonds due to the H2O supply.
- So there is a need to add some parameters in the model that give idea for changes in the size of modules for minimizing the defect density.
- Lastly, collecting feedback from users and stakeholders can help identify any issues or gaps in the software functionality or performance.
- Developers must, however, verify that they are addressed before releasing it to end-users.
- Defect density is a common metric used by QA engineers to measure the quality of software products.
- This data set is also showing the two regions for decreasing and increasing defect density trends.
- Different QA teams may have different criteria and methods for reporting defects, which can affect the accuracy and consistency of defect density.
The study by Withrow [13] shows that the defect density is decreasing with increasing size of modules up to a certain point and after that it increases with an increase in the size of the modules. These results of Withrow analysis support the hypothesis given by Banker and Kemerer [14]. CVD-WS2 monolayer samples were synthesized on sapphire substrates by the typical CVD method with tungsten oxide (WO3, Sigma-Aldrich, 99.995%) powders and sulfur (S, Sigma-Aldrich, 99.99%) powders as precursors.
More articles on Software Quality
This increasing trend in defect density for larger modules has been identified. It may happen due to possibilities that large modules may not be tested too thoroughly in comparison to the smaller modules, resulting in relatively higher defect density in larger models. From the graph it is observed that the case (ii) gives better results in terms of minimization of defect density with increasing size of modules.
This analysis done by the Basili and Perricone with a data set where most of the modules are of small size. For high-performance electronics in advanced technology nodes, the thickness of transistor channels needs to be as thin as possible to ensure sufficient gate control with the gate length scaling1. Therefore, the transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) monolayer around 1 nm thick has been considered as a promising channel material for future nodes2,3.
Determine the size metric
3a shows the kinetic energy barriers of transformation of W-OH to W-SH group. The first barrier is 0.41 eV, which is related to one H atom from H2S molecular to S atom near O atom at the WS2 edge. The second barrier is 0.94 eV, which corresponds to the H on S transfer to O atom and then the formation of H2O. The third barrier is 0.71 eV, relating to the detachment of H2O from the WS2 edge.
Therefore, it’s crucial to understand the factors that result in an efficient outcome. Developers and the testing team need to arrange all the necessary conditions before initiating this process. This helps developers trace the affected areas properly, allowing them to achieve highly accurate results.
Photonic crystal nitride LEDs
This chapter discusses challenges and opportunities in the exciting new field of microrobotic additive manufacturing. It would be logical to compare our DD measures with those reported by Coverity Inc. [53], where the firm found 359 defects in the Android kernel that is used in the phone brand HTC Droid Incredible. That report’s calculations showed that the Android kernel defect density is 0.47 defects per 1000 lines of code, being better than the industry average on one defect per 1000 lines of code. The highest defect density value in our analysis was 0.19 (per 1000 lines of code), lower than the Android kernel defect density (0.47) reported in [53].
Hence, we suspect that the electron mobility of WS2 may not be critically affected by these neutral OS and MoW defects in particularly at the density level lower than 1013 cm−2. Charged defects scatter carriers through Coulomb interaction that can also lead to significant https://www.globalcloudteam.com/ band bending and possibly a local potential change around the defects7. A recent report by Yu et al. has demonstrated the electron mobility of MoS2 monolayer can be significantly enhanced by the passivation of charged S-vacancies using thiol molecules8.
Why to measure defect density?
Analysis of the proposed model has been performed with the data set as used by the Malaiya et al. and data set collected from the PDR. Analysis with two special cases reflects an optimization of defect density with respect to original observed defect density. Through proposed model an optimal size of the module has also been identified that may be used for effective distribution of module sizes during SDLC. A condition for optimal distribution of module sizes has also been identified in this paper.
The defect density metric becomes particularly useful when comparing different components or different versions of the same component. It will determine if you’re making progress in reducing defects over time. Measuring defect density is crucial to assess the quality of software, identify areas for improvement, and make informed decisions to enhance overall software reliability and user satisfaction. From the Table 6, it is inferred that, in all three data sets, case (ii) gives more goodness of fit measured with the observed data set. The only way I can think of to use the given metrics to measure the effectiveness of QA, is to take the same piece of code, give it to different QA people and let them independently test it.
How do you measure software defect density and severity?
The solid lines and dashed ones are the experimental and fitted peaks respectively. The fitted peaks can be assigned to neutral exciton (X0), trion (XT), and defect-bound exciton (XD). Though this metric may seem insignificant to the majority of people, it is a key quality indicator. Therefore, elaborated for your reference, here is a discussion on defect density.
You can estimate the number of defects expected after testing based on the developer’s track record. If the number of defects found is significantly less than expected, it probably means the testing has not been thorough. As the complexity of code increases, the defect rate could increase significantly. This technique can be conducted along with test deriving conditions and used to enhance testing coverage.
Defect density
In theory, the more bugs they find, the better the QA (however, in reality the severity of the bugs found should also be incorporated). DEFECT DENSITY is the number of confirmed defects detected in software/ component divided by the size of the software/ component. Defect density and many other metrics for measuring the extent of testing are limited and require complex analysis to derive real insights. What would be truly useful is a holistic measurement of test coverage, and go beyond unit tests to include integration tests, acceptance tests, and manual tests as well. Traditionally there has been no easy way to see a unified test coverage metric across all types of tests and all test systems in one place.
Leave a Reply