Defeaters and Eliminative Argumentation in Assurance 2.0
A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted. A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias. The best defense against this concern is vigorous and skeptical debate and discussion in the manner of a dialectic or Socratic dialog. There is merit in recording aspects of this discussion for the benefit of subsequent developers and assessors. Defeaters are a means doing this: they express doubts about aspects of the argument and can be developed into subcases that confirm or refute the doubts, and can record them as documentation to assist future consideration. This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0 and its Clarissa/ASCE tool support. These mechanisms also support eliminative argumentation, which is a contrary approach to assurance, favored by some, that uses a negative argument to refute all reasons why the top claim could be false.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
validSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
CoDefeater: Using LLMs To Find Defeaters in Assurance Cases
Constructing assurance cases is a widely used, and sometimes required, process toward demonstrating that safety-critical systems will operate safely in their planned environment. To mitigate the risk of errors and missin…
Assessing Confidence with Assurance 2.0
An assurance case is intended to provide justifiable confidence in the truth of its top claim, which typically concerns safety or security. A natural question is then "how much" confidence does the case provide? We argue…
AttributeToward a Harmonized Approach -- Requirement-based Structuring of a Safety Assurance Argumentation for Automated Vehicles
Despite increasing testing operation on public roads, media reports on incidents show that safety issues remain to this day. One major cause factoring into this circumstance is high development uncertainty that manufactu…
Safety Case Templates for Autonomous Systems
This report documents safety assurance argument templates to support the deployment and operation of autonomous systems that include machine learning (ML) components. The document presents example safety argument templat…
Integrating Testing and Operation-related Quantitative Evidences in Assurance Cases to Argue Safety of Data-Driven AI/ML Components
In the future, AI will increasingly find its way into systems that can potentially cause physical harm to humans. For such safety-critical systems, it must be demonstrated that their residual risk does not exceed what is…