AI-Supported Eliminative Argumentation: Practical Experience Generating Defeaters to Increase Confidence in Assurance Cases

Assurance cases (AC) are structured arguments that justify why a system is acceptably safe. Though ACs can increase confidence that systems will operate safely and reliably, they are also susceptible to problems such as reasoning errors and confirmation bias. Recent work proposed AI-Supported Eliminative Argumentation (AI-EA), a framework leveraging Generative AI (GAI) models to support AC development by identifying potential reasons why the argument may be invalid (a.k.a. defeaters) so that they can be mitigated. However, this framework was not implemented and its effectiveness was not assessed empirically.In this practical experience paper, we implement AI-EA, explain and justify our design choices, and report on our practical experience in empirically evaluating its effectiveness in collaboration with experts in the safety domain. Our evaluation considers 171 AI-generated defeaters across two industrial case studies from the nuclear and automotive domains. Our findings show that GAI can generate informative defeaters with few significant hallucinations and that 25% of the generated defeaters were confirmed by developers of each AC to represent reasonable doubts or errors in the argument. Our implementation and data are made publicly available.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/issre62328.2024.00035
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.28
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI-Supported Eliminative Argumentation: Practical Experience Generating Defeaters to Increase Confidence in Assurance Cases

Claudio Menghi, Alessio Di Sandro, Logan Murphy, Simon Diemert et al.
9 citations
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
3.28
article

AI-Supported Eliminative Argumentation: Practical Experience Generating Defeaters to Increase Confidence in Assurance Cases

Claudio Menghi, Alessio Di Sandro, Logan Murphy, Simon Diemert, Torin Viger, Marsha Chećhik, Jeff Joyce
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Assurance cases (AC) are structured arguments that justify why a system is acceptably safe. Though ACs can increase confidence that systems will operate safely and reliably, they are also susceptible to problems such as reasoning errors and confirmation bias. Recent work proposed AI-Supported Eliminative Argumentation (AI-EA), a framework leveraging Generative AI (GAI) models to support AC development by identifying potential reasons why the argument may be invalid (a.k.a. defeaters) so that they can be mitigated. However, this framework was not implemented and its effectiveness was not assessed empirically.In this practical experience paper, we implement AI-EA, explain and justify our design choices, and report on our practical experience in empirically evaluating its effectiveness in collaboration with experts in the safety domain. Our evaluation considers 171 AI-generated defeaters across two industrial case studies from the nuclear and automotive domains. Our findings show that GAI can generate informative defeaters with few significant hallucinations and that 25% of the generated defeaters were confirmed by developers of each AC to represent reasonable doubts or errors in the argument. Our implementation and data are made publicly available.

University of Bergamo (IT), University of Toronto (CA), Critical Systems Labs (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
3.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.