Expert Assessment of Arguments: A Method and Its Experimental Evaluation

  • Lukasz Cyra
  • Janusz Górski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5219)


Argument structures are commonly used to develop and present cases for safety, security and other properties. Such argument structures tend to grow excessively. To deal with this problem, appropriate methods of their assessment are required. Two objectives are of particular interest: (1) systematic and explicit assessment of the compelling power of an argument, and (2) communication of the result of such an assessment to relevant recipients. The paper gives details of a new method which deals with both problems. We explain how to issue assessments and how they can be aggregated depending on the types of inference used in arguments. The method is fully implemented in a software tool. Its application is illustrated by examples. The paper also includes the results of experiments carried out to validate and calibrate the method.


Argument assessment Dempster-Shafer model Argument structures Safety Case Trust Case Assurance Case 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R.: A Methodology for Safety Case Development, Industrial Perspectives of Safety-critical Systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Safety-critical Systems Symposium, Birmingham (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloomfield, R., Guerra, S., Masera, M., Miller, A., Sami Saydjari, O.: Assurance Cases for Security, A report from a Workshop on Assurance Cases for Security, Washington, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloomfield, R.E., Littlewood, B., Wright, D.: Confidence: Its Role in Dependability Cases for Risk Assessment. In: 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 338–346 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Supporting Compliance with Safety Standards by Trust Case Templates. In: Proc. of ESREL 2007, Norway, vol. 2, pp. 1367–1374 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Standard Compliance Framework for Effective Requirements Communication. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 16(5B), 312–316 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Extending GQM by Argument Structures. In: 2nd IFIP Central and East European Conference on Software Engineering Techniques CEE-SET, pp. 1–16 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Using Argument Structures to Create a Measurement Plan. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 16(5B), 230–234 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cyra, L., Gorski, J.: Supporting Expert Assessment of Argument Structures in Trust Cases. In: Ninth International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference PSAM 9, Hong Kong, China, pp. 1–9 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorski, J., Jarzebowicz, A., Leszczyna, R., Miler, J., Olszewski, M.: Trust Case: Justifying Trust in IT Solution, Elsevier, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 89, pp. 33–47 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gorski, J.: Trust Case – a Case for Trustworthiness of IT Infrastructures, Cyberspace Security and Defence: Research Issues. NATO ARW, pp. 125–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorski, J.: Collaborative Approach to Trustworthiness of IT Infrastructures. In: Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security and Safety TEHOSS 2005, pp. 137–142 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorski, J., Zagorski, M.: Reasoning about Trust in IT Infrastructures. In: Proc. of ESREL 2005, pp. 689–695 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenwell, W., Strunk, E., Knight, J.: Failure Analysis and the Safety-Case Lifecycle, Human Error, Safety and Systems Development 2004, pp. 163–176 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Information Assurance Group: TCT User Manual, Gdansk University of Technology (2007),
  15. 15.
    Josang, A., Grandison, T.: Conditional Inference in Subjective Logic. In: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Information Fusion, Cairns, pp. 471–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Josang, A., Pope, S., Daniel, M.: Conditional Deduction Under Uncertainty. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 824–835. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly, T.: Arguing Safety – A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. PhD Thesis, University of York, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Maintenance. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K., Pasquini, A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1698, pp. 271–284. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    PIPS Project website,
  20. 20.
    Sentez, K., Ferson, S.: Combination of Evidence in Dempster-Shafer Theory, SANDIA National Laboratories (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shafer, G.: Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princetown University Press (1976)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strigini, L.: Formalism and Judgement in Assurance Cases, Workshop on Assurance Cases: Best Practices, Possible Obstacles, and Future Opportunities. In: Proc. of DSN 2004, Florence, Italy (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukasz Cyra
    • 1
  • Janusz Górski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringGdansk University of TechnologyGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations