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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
UK Ministry of Defence: Defence standard 00-55 the procurement of safety critical software in defence equipment (1997). http://www.dstan.mod.uk/. Accessed 20 May 2011
International Electrotechnical Commission: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (IEC 61508 ed2.0) (2010). http://www.iec.ch/. Accessed 20 May 2011
Bishop, P.G., Bloomfield, R.E.: A methodology for safety case development. In: Safety-Critical Systems Symposium (SSS 1998) (1998)
Leveson, N.: The use of safety cases in certification and regulation. J. Syst. Safety 47(6), 1–5 (2011)
Kelly, T.P.: Reviewing assurance arguments a step-by-step approach. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Assurance Cases for Security: The Metrics Challenge, Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), Edinburgh (2007)
Yuan, T., Kelly, T.: Argument-based approach to computer system safety engineering. Int. J. Crit. Comput. Based Syst. 3(3), 151–167 (2012)
Yuan, T., Kelly, T., Xu, T.: Computer-assisted safety argument review a dialectics approach. Argum. Comput. 6(2), 130–148 (2014)
Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety - a systematic approach to safety case management. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, York (1999)
Kelly, T., Weaver, R.: The goal structuring notation - a safety argument notation. In: Proceedings of the Dependable Systems and Networks 2004 Workshop on Assurance Cases, Florence (2004)
Shum, S.B.: Cohere: towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), Toulouse (2008)
Gordon, T., Walton, D.: The Carneades argumentation framework: using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 195–207. IOS Press (2006)
Reed, C.A., Rowe, G.W.A.: Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. J. AI Tools 13(4), 961980 (2004)
Emmet, L., Cleland, G.: Graphical notations, narratives and persuasion: a pliant systems approach to hypertext tool design. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (2002)
Group, O.M: Argument metamodel (2010). http://www.omg.org/spec/ARM
Yuan, T., Kelly, T.: Argument schemes in computer system safety engineering. Informal Log. 31(2), 89–109 (2011)
Kelly, T.P.: Using software architecture techniques to support the modular certification of safety critical systems. In: Proceedings of Eleventh Australian Workshop on Safety-Related Programmable Systems, Melbourne (2005)
Kinnersly, S.: Whole airspace ATM system safety case preliminary study. A report produced for EUROCONTROL by AEA technology, AEAT LD76008/2 Issue, 1 (2001)
Wan, F.: Auto-detecting fallacies in system safety arguments. Master’s thesis, University of York, York (2013)
Damer, T.E.: Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6th edn. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston (2009)
Greenwell, W.S., Holloway, C.M., Knight, J.C.: A taxonomy of fallacies in system safety arguments. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, Yokohama, Japan (2005)
Lions, J.L.: Ariane 501 failure: report by the inquiry board. European Space Agency, July 1996
Yuan, T., Kelly, T., Xu, T., Wang, H., Zhao, L.: A dialogue based safety argument review tool. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA-2013), Kanagawa, Japan (2013)
Yuan, T., Moore, D., Grierson, A.: A human-computer dialogue system for educational debate, a computational dialectics approach. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 18(1), 3–26 (2008)
Reed, C., Wells, S.: Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intell. Syst. J. Spec. Issue Argum. Technol. 22(6), 60–65 (2007)
Wells, S., Reed, C.: A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. J. Appl. Log. 10(4), 309–329 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yuan, T., Manandhar, S., Kelly, T., Wells, S. (2016). Automatically Detecting Fallacies in System Safety Arguments. In: Baldoni, M., et al. Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. CMNA IWEC IWEC 2015 2015 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9935. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46217-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46218-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)