Automating Semantic Analysis of System Assurance Cases using Goal-directed ASP

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11699v5
• Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 17:39:49 GMT
• Title: Automating Semantic Analysis of System Assurance Cases using Goal-directed ASP
• Authors: Anitha Murugesan, Isaac Wong, Joaquín Arias, Robert Stroud, Srivatsan Varadarajan, Elmer Salazar, Gopal Gupta, Robin Bloomfield, John Rushby,
• Abstract summary: We present our approach to enhancing Assurance 2.0 with semantic rule-based analysis capabilities. We examine the unique semantic aspects of assurance cases, such as logical consistency, adequacy, indefeasibility, etc.
• Score: 1.2189422792863451
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Assurance cases offer a structured way to present arguments and evidence for certification of systems where safety and security are critical. However, creating and evaluating these assurance cases can be complex and challenging, even for systems of moderate complexity. Therefore, there is a growing need to develop new automation methods for these tasks. While most existing assurance case tools focus on automating structural aspects, they lack the ability to fully assess the semantic coherence and correctness of the assurance arguments. In prior work, we introduced the Assurance 2.0 framework that prioritizes the reasoning process, evidence utilization, and explicit delineation of counter-claims (defeaters) and counter-evidence. In this paper, we present our approach to enhancing Assurance 2.0 with semantic rule-based analysis capabilities using common-sense reasoning and answer set programming solvers, specifically s(CASP). By employing these analysis techniques, we examine the unique semantic aspects of assurance cases, such as logical consistency, adequacy, indefeasibility, etc. The application of these analyses provides both system developers and evaluators with increased confidence about the assurance case.

Related papers

• A PRISMA-Driven Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on Assurance Case Patterns [7.930875992631788]
  Assurance cases can be used to prevent system failure. They are structured arguments that allow arguing and relaying various safety-critical systems' requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T05:00:49Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• ACCESS: Assurance Case Centric Engineering of Safety-critical Systems [9.388301205192082]
  Assurance cases are used to communicate and assess confidence in critical system properties such as safety and security. In recent years, model-based system assurance approaches have gained popularity to improve the efficiency and quality of system assurance activities. We show how model-based system assurance cases can trace to heterogeneous engineering artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:29:50Z)
• Towards Continuous Assurance Case Creation for ADS with the Evidential Tool Bus [0.4194295877935868]
  An assurance case has become an integral component for the certification of safety-critical systems. We report on our preliminary experience leveraging the tool integration framework Evidential Tool Bus (ETB) for the construction and continuous maintenance of an assurance case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:32:48Z)
• I came, I saw, I certified: some perspectives on the safety assurance of cyber-physical systems [5.9395940943056384]
  Execution failure of cyber-physical systems could result in loss of life, severe injuries, large-scale environmental damage, property destruction, and major economic loss. It is often mandatory to develop compelling assurance cases to support that justification and allow regulatory bodies to certify such systems. We explore challenges related to such assurance enablers and outline some potential directions that could be explored to tackle them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T00:06:16Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process [51.42800587382228]
  Safety assurance cases (SACs) can be challenging to maintain during system evolution. We propose a solution that leverages software traceability to connect relevant system artifacts to safety analysis models. We elicit design rationales for system changes to help safety stakeholders analyze the impact of system changes on safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T16:03:27Z)
• Evaluating Model-free Reinforcement Learning toward Safety-critical Tasks [70.76757529955577]
  This paper revisits prior work in this scope from the perspective of state-wise safe RL. We propose Unrolling Safety Layer (USL), a joint method that combines safety optimization and safety projection. To facilitate further research in this area, we reproduce related algorithms in a unified pipeline and incorporate them into SafeRL-Kit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-12T06:30:17Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Integrating Testing and Operation-related Quantitative Evidences in Assurance Cases to Argue Safety of Data-Driven AI/ML Components [2.064612766965483]
  In the future, AI will increasingly find its way into systems that can potentially cause physical harm to humans. For such safety-critical systems, it must be demonstrated that their residual risk does not exceed what is acceptable. This paper proposes a more holistic argumentation structure for having achieved the target.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-10T20:35:25Z)
• Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Security [74.1816306998445]
  Despite great potential, machine learning in security is prone to subtle pitfalls that undermine its performance. We identify common pitfalls in the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning-based security systems. We propose actionable recommendations to support researchers in avoiding or mitigating the pitfalls where possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T13:09:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.