Advertisement

Research on the Classification of the Relationships Among the Same Layer Elements in Assurance Case Structure for Evaluation

  • Biao XuEmail author
  • Minyan Lu
  • Tingyang Gu
  • Dajian Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11094)

Abstract

The use of assurance cases in certification raises the question of assurance argument sufficiency and the issue of confidence (or uncertainty) in the argument’s claims. Some researchers propose to model confidence quantitatively and to calculate confidence in argument conclusions. However, most of the existing assurance evaluation techniques focus on top-bottom decomposition and assume that the elements of the same level are independent of each other. The lack of information on the relationships among supporting elements of the same level may easily lead to deviations from estimation expectations. In this paper, a modified approach for evaluation of confidence in assurance cases is proposed. Firstly, in order to eliminate the deviation from the independence hypothesis, we discuss the relationships of the supporting elements for confidence evaluation and propose a simple classification. Then we compare the different confidence results under the independence assumption and the correlation assumption using the same confidence evaluation method, and discuss the causes of differences. Finally, we discuss several future work.

Keywords

Assurance case Quantified confidence Informal logic Toulmin Model Bayesian Belief Network 

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstock, C.B., Goodenough, J.B.: Towards an Assurance Case Practice for Medical Devices. CMU/SEI-2009-TN-018 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloomfield, R., Littlewood, B., Wright, D.: Confidence: its role in dependability cases for risk assessment. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, Edinburgh, pp. 338–346 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Towards measurement of confidence in safety cases. In: 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, vol. 9337, pp. 380–383 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo, B.: Knowledge representation and uncertainty management: applying Bayesian Belief Networks to a safety assessment expert system. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, NLP-KE 2003, pp. 114–119 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hobbs, C., Lloyd, M.: The application of Bayesian Belief Networks to assurance case preparation. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Achieving Systems Safety, pp. 159–176. Springer, London (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2494-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 79–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33675-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayoub, A., Chang, J., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Assessing the overall sufficiency of safety arguments. In: SSS 2013 21st Safety-Critical Systems Symposium (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Support for argument structures review and assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96, 26–37 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guiochet, J., Do Hoang, Q.A., Kaaniche, M.: A model for safety case confidence assessment. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 9337, pp. 313–327. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24255-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeng, F., Lu, M., Zhong, D.: Using D-S evidence theory to evaluation of confidence in safety case. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 47, 184–189 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duan, L., Rayadurgam, S., Heimdahl, M.P.E., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Representing confidence in assurance case evidence. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9338, pp. 15–26. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nair, S., Walkinshaw, N., Kelly, T.: Quantifying uncertainty in safety cases using evidential reasoning. In: Bondavalli, A., Ceccarelli, A., Ortmeier, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8696, pp. 413–418. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10557-4_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graydon, P.J., Holloway, C.M.: An investigation of proposed techniques for quantifying confidence in assurance arguments. Saf. Sci. 92, 53–65 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelly, T.: The goal structuring notation-a safety argument notation. In: Workshop on Proceedings of the Dependable Systems and Networks (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Key Laboratory on Reliability and Environmental Engineering TechnologyBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.China Financial Certification AuthorityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations