Argument-based approach to computer system safety engineering

Yuan, Tangming; Kelly, Tim

doi:10.1504/ijccbs.2012.050295

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our work builds on existing many excellent ideas for assurance cases, particularly based on assurance representations such as CAE [3] and GSN [14,18], lifecycle developments [9,23], argument patterns [11,24], and reviewing arguments [17,25]. The use of accountability (with stakeholder identity) is a little spice for the lifecycle maintenance of assurance cases.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Service Dependability with Continuously Revised Assurance Cases by Multiple Stakeholders: A Case Study

Kuramitsu

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, assurance cases have received much attentions in the field of software-based computer systems and IT services. However, software very often changes and there are no strong regulations for software. These facts are main two challenges to be addressed in software assurance cases. We propose a development method of assurance cases by means of continuous revision at every stage of the system lifecycle, including in-operation and service recovery in failure cases. The quality of dependability arguments are improved by multiple stakeholders who check with each other. This paper reported our experience of the proposed method in a case of the ASPEN education service. The case study demonstrate that the continuos updates create a significant amount of active risk communications between stakeholders. This gives us a promising perspective for the long-term improvement of service dependability with the lifecycle assurance cases.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Service Dependability with Continuously Revised Assurance Cases by Multiple Stakeholders: A Case Study

Kuramitsu

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The argument-based approach to safety case development has been widely adopted in Europe, and increasingly worldwide (e.g., Australia and Japan) and in a wide variety of domains (including defence, automotive, medical, and rail) (Haddon-Cave, 2009;Yuan & Kelly, 2012). Given the subjective nature of arguments, reviews are always necessary to independently scrutinise and challenge the arguments.…”

Section: Conclusion and Further Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the past two decades, there has been a trend towards an explicit argument-based approach which is the third approach to safety justification (Bishop & Bloomfield, 1995Kelly, 1999Kelly, , 2007Kelly & Weaver, 2004;McDermid, 1991McDermid, , 2001Yuan & Kelly, 2012). The approach is to support how sophisticated engineering arguments are actually made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-assisted safety argument review – a dialectics approach

Yuan

Kelly

2014

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been increasing use of argument-based approaches in the development of safetycritical systems. Within this approach, a safety case plays a key role in the system development life cycle. The key components in a safety case are safety arguments, which are designated to demonstrate that the system is acceptably safe. Inappropriate reasoning in safety arguments could undermine a system's safety claims which in turn contribute to safety-related failures of the system. The review of safety arguments is therefore a crucial step in the development of safety-critical systems. Reviews are conducted using dialogues where elements of the argument and their relations are proposed and scrutinised. This paper investigates an approach of conducting argument review using dialectical models. After studying five established dialectical models with varying strengths and drawbacks, a new dialectical model specially designed to support persuasion and information-seeking dialogues has been proposed to suit the requirements of argument review. An argument review prototype system was then iteratively developed. It adopted the model and aims to conduct argument review dialogues in a structured manner. User-based evaluations of the system suggest the usefulness of the dialectics approach to safety argument review. The evaluation also sheds light on the future development of such an application.

show abstract

“…The objective of a review is for the two parties to form a mutual acceptance of their subjective positions [5]. A safety argument review model [6] and tool [7] have been developed to facilitate this process. Despite the usefulness of the review framework, the quality of review arguments is not guaranteed as this largely relies on the reviewers' strategic wisdom and expertise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatically Detecting Fallacies in System Safety Arguments

Yuan

Manandhar

Kelly

et al. 2016

Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Safety cases play a significant role in the development of safety-critical systems. The key components in a safety case are safety arguments, that are designated to demonstrate that the system is acceptably safe. Inappropriate reasoning with safety arguments could undermine a system's safety claims which in turn contribute to safety-related failures of the system. Currently, safety argument reviews are conducted manually, require expensive expertise and are often labour intensive. It would therefore be desirable if software can be employed to help with the detection of flaws in the arguments. A prerequisite for this approach is the need for a formal representation of safety arguments. This paper proposes a predicate logic based representation of safety arguments and a method to detect argument fallacies. It is anticipated that the work contributes to the field of the safety case development as well as to the area of computational fallacies.

show abstract

Argument-based approach to computer system safety engineering

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Service Dependability with Continuously Revised Assurance Cases by Multiple Stakeholders: A Case Study

Service Dependability with Continuously Revised Assurance Cases by Multiple Stakeholders: A Case Study

Computer-assisted safety argument review – a dialectics approach

Automatically Detecting Fallacies in System Safety Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About