Eliminative Argumentation: A Basis for Arguing Confidence in System Properties

نویسندگان

  • John B. Goodenough
  • Charles B. Weinstock
  • Ari Z. Klein
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

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

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 کامل

Strategic 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 کامل

Strategic 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 کامل

On 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 کامل

What 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

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2015