Schedule a Software Walkthrough
Software Reliability Growth Models
SRGM Reference — Model 2 of 14

Musa-Okumoto Logarithmic Poisson Model

Unlike finite-failure models, the Musa-Okumoto Logarithmic Poisson Execution Time Model assumes the total number of faults is effectively unbounded, and that earlier-discovered faults have a disproportionately larger impact on failure intensity than later ones. It's the go-to model when failure data doesn't level off the way a finite-failure model expects.

Infinite-Failure NHPP
Assumes an unbounded, ever-decreasing supply of detectable faults
1984
Introduced by John Musa and Kazuhira Okumoto
Long-Running Projects
Typically doesn't fit the trend when the software is stabilized. Debatable for use in Agile development.
Overview

A model for software that never quite runs out of faults

The Logarithmic Poisson model drops the finite-fault assumption entirely. Instead, it assumes the software has an effectively infinite population of faults with unequal severity — early faults are found and fixed quickly and have an outsized effect on reducing failure intensity, while later faults matter progressively less, producing a logarithmic (rather than exponential) growth curve.

Model Family

Infinite-Failure NHPP

Total fault count is not assumed finite — the mean value function grows without bound, just very slowly over time.

Introduced

1984 — Musa & Okumoto

Developed as a companion to the Basic Execution Time model for projects where the finite-failure assumption doesn't hold.

Requs Trend

Covered — Logarithmic

This model is one of the five named model families in Requs Trend's ensemble averaging.

01 — The Math

How the Logarithmic Poisson Model works

The defining trait of this model is that failure intensity decreases as a function of the number of failures already observed, not directly as a function of time — producing a logarithmic mean value function.

§1Mean Value

Mean Value Function

Formula
μ(τ) = (1/θ) ln(λ0θτ + 1)
Expected cumulative failures grow logarithmically, never flattening out

Unlike the Basic model, μ(τ) here has no upper asymptote — it keeps growing, just increasingly slowly, reflecting the unbounded-fault assumption.

What the Terms Mean
  • μ(τ) — expected cumulative number of failures by execution time τ
  • λ₀ — initial failure intensity at τ = 0
  • θ — the failure intensity decay parameter
§2Intensity

Failure Intensity Function

Formula
λ(τ) = λ0 / (λ0θτ + 1)
Failure intensity as a function of execution time τ

Intensity decreases as a reciprocal function of τ rather than exponentially, so it falls off more slowly in absolute terms as testing continues.

What the Terms Mean
  • λ(τ) — instantaneous failure intensity at execution time τ
  • λ₀ and θ — same parameters as the mean value function
  • Failure intensity decreases by a constant factor each time a fixed number of additional failures occurs
§3Assumptions

Key Assumptions

Model Assumptions

This model relaxes the finite-fault assumption but adds an assumption about how fault severity is distributed.

Assumption List
  • The total number of faults is effectively unbounded (infinite-failure category)
  • Faults discovered earlier have a proportionally larger impact on failure intensity than faults discovered later
  • Failures occur according to a Poisson process with logarithmically decreasing intensity
  • Fault repair is instantaneous and does not introduce new faults
§4Estimation

Parameter Estimation

Method

λ₀ and θ are estimated with maximum likelihood estimation against observed failure times or grouped counts. Because the model has no upper asymptote, fitting focuses on matching the curvature of the logarithmic growth rather than an eventual plateau.

What's Being Estimated
  • λ₀ — fit from the observed initial failure intensity
  • θ — fit from how quickly that intensity decays as failures accumulate
  • Model fit is typically compared against finite-failure alternatives (like Musa Basic or Goel-Okumoto) using AIC or PSSE
02 — Strengths & Limitations

Strengths, limitations, and best fit for the Logarithmic Poisson Model

STRENGTHS

Fits data that never plateaus

Handles large, long-lived, or continuously evolving codebases where a finite-failure model would systematically underestimate remaining risk.

LIMITATIONS

No natural stopping point

Because the mean value function is unbounded, the model can't directly answer "how many total faults remain" the way a finite-failure model can.

BEST USED FOR

Large or continuously growing systems

Best suited for waterfall development.

REQUS TREND

Included in the ensemble

Listed directly among Requs Trend's five named model families, alongside Exponential, NHPP, Rayleigh, and Weibull.

See this model fit against real project data.

Start with Requs Trend online demo or a discussion of your current reliability growth modeling approach.