Abstract
Building a safety case is a common approach to make expert judgement explicit about safety of a system. The issue of confidence in such argumentation is still an open research field. Providing quantitative estimation of confidence is an interesting approach to manage complexity of arguments. This paper explores the main current approaches, and proposes a new model for quantitative confidence estimation based on Belief Theory for its definition, and on Bayesian Belief Networks for its propagation in safety case networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
Ayoub, A., Kim, B.G., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: A systematic approach to justifying sufficient confidence in software safety arguments. In: Ortmeier, F., Lipaczewski, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Anaheed, A., Jian, C., Oleg, S., Insup, L.: Assessing the overall sufficiency of safety arguments. In: 21st Safety-critical Systems Symposium (SSS’13), Bristol, United Kingdom (2013)
Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R., Guerra, S.: The future of goal-based assurance cases. In: DSN Workshop on Assurance Cases: Best Practices, Possibles Obstacles, and Future Opportunities. Florence, Italy, July 2004
Cyra, L., Górski, J.: Support for argument structures review and assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96(1), 26–37 (2011)
Dardenne, A., Fickas, S., van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20, 3–50 (1993)
DefStan 00–56: Defence standard 00–56 issue 3: Safety management requirements for defence systems. UK Ministry of Defence (2004)
Denney, E., Habli, I., Pai, G.: Towards measurements of confidence in safety cases. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2011). Banff, Canada, September 2011
Díez, F.J., Druzdzel, M.J.: Canonical probabilistic models for knowledge engineering. In: UNED Technical reports, Research Center on Intelligent Decision-Support Systems. Madrid, Spain (2007)
Do Hoang, Q.: Analyse et justification de la sécurité de systèmes robotiques en interaction physique avec l’humain (in French). Ph.D. thesis, INP Toulouse, LAAS-CNRS (2015)
Felipe, A., Mohamed, S., Walter, S., Siqi, Q.: On the distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty and its implications on reliability and risk analysis. In: European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2013 (2013)
Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. CRC Press, Taylor and francis Group, Boca Raton (2012)
Goodenough, J., Weinstock, C., Klein, A.: Eliminative induction: A basis for arguing system confidence. In: 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2013), pp. 1161–1164, May 2013
Goodenough, J.B., Weinstock, C.B., Klein, A.Z.: Toward a theory of assurance case confidence. In: Software Engineering Institute, Carnagie Mellon University (2012)
GSN-Standard: GSN COMMUNITY STANDARD VERSION 1 (2011). http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info. Accessed Decembre 18th 2014
Guiochet, J., Do Hoang, Q.A., Kaaniche, M., Powell, D.: Model-based safety analysis of human-robot interactions: The MIRAS walking assistance robot. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 1–7 (2013)
Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., Graydon, P.: A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. In: Proceedings of 19th Safety Critical Systems Symposium. Southampton, UK, February 2011
Hitchcock, D.: Good reasoning on the toulmin model. Argumentation 19(3), 373–391 (2005)
Hobbs, C., Lloyd, M.: The application of bayesian belief networks to assurance case preparation. In: Proceedings of the 20th Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, Bristol, UK. pp. 159–176. Springer London (2012)
Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety - a systematic approach to managing safety cases. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (1998)
Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: Safety case construction and reuse using patterns. In: 16th International Conference on Computer Safety and Reliability (SAFECOMP97) (1997)
Littlewood, B., Wright, D.: The use of multilegged arguments to increase confidence in safety claims for software-based systems: A study based on a BBN analysis of an idealized example. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(5), 347–365 (2007)
OMG-ARM: Structured assurance case metamodel (SACM), version 1. Object Management Group (2013)
Pearl, J.: Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1988)
Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations, pp. 451–469 (2008)
Toulmin, S.: The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Zhao, X., Zhang, D., Lu, M., Zeng, F.: A new approach to assessment of confidence in assurance cases. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 79–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Guiochet, J., Do Hoang, Q.A., Kaaniche, M. (2015). A Model for Safety Case Confidence Assessment. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9337. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24255-2_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24255-2_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24254-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24255-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)