Eliminative Argumentation: A Basis for Arguing Confidence in System Properties
نویسندگان
چکیده
Assurance cases provide a structured method of explaining why a system has some desired property, for example, that the system is safe. But there is no agreed approach for explaining what degree of confidence one should have in the conclusions of such a case. This report defines a new concept, eliminative argumentation, that provides a philosophically grounded basis for assessing how much confidence one should have in an assurance case argument. This report will be of interest mainly to those familiar with assurance case concepts and who want to know why one argument rather than another provides more confidence in a claim. The report is also potentially of value to those interested more generally in argumentation theory. CMU/SEI-2015-TR-005 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY ix CMU/SEI-2015-TR-005 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY x
منابع مشابه
On Discovery of Stirring Arguments: A Random-Tree Approach to Collaborative Argumentation Support
This paper proposes a probabilistic approach to argumentation support systems for policy discourse. Arguing that the current e-democracy applications need an analytical basis for processing policy-related information, we attempt to build an argumentation support system that can selectively identify ‘stirring arguments’ that have stimulated the entire group processes. Two random-tree models are ...
متن کاملStrategic argumentation in open multi-agent societies
The main aim of my PhD thesis is to develop a theory for arguing in groups and apply it to allow agents in open MultiAgent societies to reach agreements by using argumentation. The thesis proposes a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. Also, a protocol that allows agents in multi-agent societies to engage in argumentation processes is also being developed. ACM Categories: ...
متن کاملStrategic Argumentation in Open Multi-Agent Societies
The main aim of my PhD thesis is to develop a theory for arguing in groups and apply it to allow agents in open MultiAgent societies to reach agreements by using argumentation. The thesis proposes a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. Also, a protocol that allows agents in multi-agent societies to engage in argumentation processes is also being developed. ACM Categories: ...
متن کاملOn Strategic Argument Selection in Structured Argumentation Systems
This paper deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough ...
متن کاملWhat do you mean? Arguing for Meaning
Building ontologies has been proven to be a complex issue in part because a community must commit to the conceptualization that the ontology represents. The community members must align their concepts and co-create. Arguing about a useful conceptualization is therefore an essential part of the process of designing an ontology. Logicians have developed formal argumentation theories, but have not...
متن کامل