Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “assurance argument”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

An overview of the V&V of Flight-Critical Systems effort at NASA

As the US is getting ready for the Next Generation (NextGen) of Air Traffic System, there is a growing concern that the current techniques for verification and validation will not be adequate for the changes to come. The JPDO (in charge of implementing NextGen) has given NASA a mandate to address the problem and it resulted in the formulation of the V&V of Flight-Critical Systems effort. This research effort is divided into four themes: argument-based safety assurance, distributed systems, authority and autonomy, and, software intensive systems. This paper presents an overview of the technologies that will address the problem.

validation↗
NASA NTRS2015

Towards a Formal Basis for Modular Safety Cases

Safety assurance using argument-based safety cases is an accepted best-practice in many safety-critical sectors. Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), which is widely used for presenting safety arguments graphically, provides a notion of modular arguments to support the goal of incremental certification. Despite the efforts at standardization, GSN remains an informal notation whereas the GSN standard contains appreciable ambiguity especially concerning modular extensions. This, in turn, presents challenges when developing tools and methods to intelligently manipulate modular GSN arguments. This paper develops the elements of a theory of modular safety cases, leveraging our previous work on formalizing GSN arguments. Using example argument structures we highlight some ambiguities arising through the existing guidance, present the intuition underlying the theory, clarify syntax, and address modular arguments, contracts, well-formedness and well-scopedness of modules. Based on this theory, we have a preliminary implementation of modular arguments in our toolset, AdvoCATE.

Safety↗
NASA NTRS2023

The Friendly Argument Notation (FAN): 2023 Version

This document constitutes the official description of the current iteration of the Friendly Argument Notation (FAN). This new version provides several enhancements to the original 2020 instantiation, while maintaining essential compatibility with it. Specifically, the new version enables distinguishing between deductive and non-deductive arguments, removes the requirement for always providing an explicit statement of reasoning, and relaxes the rules for when labels may be used. The primary intended use of FAN is unchanged: creating and evaluating arguments about safety-critical systems, specifically the types of arguments common within safety and assurance cases.

language↗
NASA NTRS2018

FUELEAP Model-Based System Safety Analysis

NASA researchers, in a partnership with Boeing, are investigating a fuel-cell powered variant of the X-57 “Maxwell” Mod-II electric propulsion aircraft, which is itself derived from a stock Tecnam P2006T. The “Fostering Ultra-Efficient Low-Emitting Aviation Power” (FUELEAP) project will replace the X-57 power subsystem with a hybrid Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system to increase the potential range of the electric-propulsion aircraft while dramatically improving efficiency and emissions over stock internal-combustion engines. Our FUELEAP safety analysis faces two primary challenges. First, the Part 23 certificated Tecnam P2006T is undergoing significant modifications to host the hybrid electric-propulsion system, and the challenge is to assure that the safety inherent in the stock aircraft (and subsequently in X-57 Mod-II) is not compromised by changes in avionics, aircraft structural loading, weight and balance, or other considerations. Secondly, because the SOFC power system has little (if any) relevant in-service precedent, our challenge is to assure that we identify and mitigate all reasonably plausible hazards introduced by unique FUELEAP equipage. We are investigating and utilizing Model-Based Safety Analysis (MBSA) methods to help us address these FUELEAP safety challenges. We captured aircraft-level system hazard conditions using instances of a SysML hazard block via aircraft-level Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA). Then, using SysML models of the FUELEAP architecture, we related the hazard conditions to initiating system events and possible mitigations, such as design architecture modifications or operational constraints. We are continuing to define our approach to MBSA by developing a component-by-component inventory of local failure modes and tracing their possible contribution to hazard conditions. Finally, we are applying an argument-based approach to FUELEAP assurance. Through a FUELEAP “safety case,” we are providing an explicit argument for FUELEAP safety by associating assurance evidence with overarching safety claims through a structured argument.

Woodham, Kurt P.↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Taxonomy of Fallacies in System Safety Arguments

Safety cases are gaining acceptance as assurance vehicles for safety-related systems. A safety case documents the evidence and argument that a system is safe to operate; however, logical fallacies in the underlying argument may undermine a system s safety claims. Removing these fallacies is essential to reduce the risk of safety-related system failure. We present a taxonomy of common fallacies in safety arguments that is intended to assist safety professionals in avoiding and detecting fallacious reasoning in the arguments they develop and review. The taxonomy derives from a survey of general argument fallacies and a separate survey of fallacies in real-world safety arguments. Our taxonomy is specific to safety argumentation, and it is targeted at professionals who work with safety arguments but may lack formal training in logic or argumentation. We discuss the rationale for the selection and categorization of fallacies in the taxonomy. In addition to its applications to the development and review of safety cases, our taxonomy could also support the analysis of system failures and promote the development of more robust safety case patterns.

Greenwell, William S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Understanding and Evaluating Assurance Cases

Assurance cases are a method for providing assurance for a system by giving an argument to justify a claim about the system, based on evidence about its design, development, and tested behavior. In comparison with assurance based on guidelines or standards (which essentially specify only the evidence to be produced), the chief novelty in assurance cases is provision of an explicit argument. In principle, this can allow assurance cases to be more finely tuned to the specific circumstances of the system, and more agile than guidelines in adapting to new techniques and applications. The first part of this report (Sections 1-4) provides an introduction to assurance cases. Although this material should be accessible to all those with an interest in these topics, the examples focus on software for airborne systems, traditionally assured using the DO-178C guidelines and its predecessors. A brief survey of some existing assurance cases is provided in Section 5. The second part (Section 6) considers the criteria, methods, and tools that may be used to evaluate whether an assurance case provides sufficient confidence that a particular system or service is fit for its intended use. An assurance case cannot provide unequivocal "proof" for its claim, so much of the discussion focuses on the interpretation of such less-than-definitive arguments, and on methods to counteract confirmation bias and other fallibilities in human reasoning.

Rushby, John↗
DOE OSTI2025

Safety Assurance Framework for Nuclear Digital Instrumentation and Control Software

Software in digital instrumentation and control (D&C) systems poses unique challenges for the safety assurance of nuclear power plants. Through a literature survey of 21 sources, we analyzed various claims, arguments, and evidence used in safety assurance cases across industries. These were organized into a Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) safety assurance case framework to organize and visualize the various arguments for DI&C safety. We developed a classification for the levels of the framework, which can be used in other safety assurance cases to improve clarity.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗
NASA NTRS2021

Retrospectively Documenting Satisfaction of the Overarching Properties: An Exploratory Prototype

Software-intensive aviation systems are typically developed in accordance with recognized development process, safety analysis, and software development standards such as SAE ARP4754A, SAE ARP4761, and RTCA DO-178C. Efforts to streamline assurance processes and make them flexible enough to handle future assurance challenges have produced the Overarching Properties (OPs) for airworthiness approval. Each of the three OPs is a property systems must possess to be certifiable. There is no mandated means of documenting possession of the OPs. To explore possible means, we have prepared retrospective documentation showing that a specimen software system possesses the OPs. The specimen system, Safeguard, enforces geofencing restrictions on unmanned aerial vehicles. Our OP-possession case for its airborne component comprises eight arguments in the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN): a main argument for each OP and five cross-cutting auxiliary arguments. We present this argument as an example for discussion and further research, e.g., into means of assessing OP possession.

safety case↗
NASA NTRS2013

Evidence Arguments for Using Formal Methods in Software Certification

We describe a generic approach for automatically integrating the output generated from a formal method/tool into a software safety assurance case, as an evidence argument, by (a) encoding the underlying reasoning as a safety case pattern, and (b) instantiating it using the data produced from the method/tool. We believe this approach not only improves the trustworthiness of the evidence generated from a formal method/tool, by explicitly presenting the reasoning and mechanisms underlying its genesis, but also provides a way to gauge the suitability of the evidence in the context of the wider assurance case. We illustrate our work by application to a real example-an unmanned aircraft system- where we invoke a formal code analysis tool from its autopilot software safety case, automatically transform the verification output into an evidence argument, and then integrate it into the former.

Argumentation↗
NASA NTRS2016

Model Based Mission Assurance: Emerging Opportunities for Robotic Systems

The emergence of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in a Model Based Engineering framework has created new opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiencies across the assurance functions. The MBSE environment supports not only system architecture development, but provides for support of Systems Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis concurrently in the same framework. Linking to detailed design will further improve assurance capabilities to support failures avoidance and mitigation in flight systems. This also is leading new assurance functions including model assurance and management of uncertainty in the modeling environment. Further, the assurance cases, a structured hierarchal argument or model, are emerging as a basis for supporting a comprehensive viewpoint in which to support Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA).

Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Friendly Argument Notation (FAN)

This document defines and explains through examples the Friendly Argument Notation (FAN). FAN builds on previous work investigating text-based ways to express arguments [2, 3]. Its primary intended use is for creating and evaluating arguments about safety-critical systems, especially the types of arguments common within safety and assurance cases [4], but nothing in its design constrains its use to that domain. Compared to existing notations commonly used within this domain (for example [6]), FAN corresponds more closely to traditional argument concepts (for example [1]), allows greater flexibility in expression, provides for including counter-arguments, and requires less knowledge of computer-science-specific concepts. Only time and use will determine how beneficial these differences are in practice. This paper concentrates on showing how FAN looks to someone who is using it manually to develop or assess arguments. A later document will concentrate on providing the information necessary for software tools to be created for FAN.

arugment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for planetary protection are achieved during space flight missions. While prescriptive requirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are probabilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with supporting evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understanding and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return.

Assurance Case↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, NASA has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for space flight missions are achieved. While prescriptive re-quirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly-constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are prob-abilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with support-ing evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understand-ing and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Pro-tection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return. This presentation will explore the development and implementation of an assurance case approach in the context of planetary protection, the shift from prescriptive requirements and the ongoing culture change in the technical community, and the support and guidance from NASA’s OPP in adopting the assurance case approach for achieving planetary protection objectives on NASA’s space flight missions.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2012

Safety Assurance in NextGen

The generation of minimum operational, safety, performance, and interoperability requirements is an important aspect of safely integrating new NextGen components into the Communication Navigation Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) system. These requirements are used as part of the implementation and approval processes. In addition, they provide guidance to determine the levels of design assurance and performance that are needed for each element of the new NextGen procedures, including aircraft, operator, and Air Navigation and Service Provider. Using the enhanced Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness for InTrail Procedure (ATSA-ITP) as an example, this report describes some limitations of the current process used for generating safety requirements and levels of required design assurance. An alternative process is described, as well as the argument for why the alternative can generate more comprehensive requirements and greater safety assurance than the current approach.

HarrisonFleming, Cody↗
NASA NTRS2022

AdvoCATE User Guide

This tutorial gives an overview of AdvoCATE - the assurance case automation toolset - which provides a suite of features for safety risk management, including hazard analysis, the linking of hazards to requirement logs, risk modeling using bow tie diagrams, structured arguments, and evidence logs. In this tutorial we show how these related assurance artifacts can be combined with each other in an integrated assurance case.

Safety assurance↗
NASA NTRS2020

Hazard Contribution Modes of Machine Learning Components

Amongst the essential steps to be taken towards developing and deploying safe systems with embedded learning-enabled components (LECs) i.e., software components that use ma- chine learning (ML)—are to analyze and understand the con- tribution of the constituent LECs to safety, and to assure that those contributions have been appropriately managed. This paper addresses both steps by, first, introducing the notion of hazard contribution modes (HCMs) a categorization of the ways in which the ML elements of LECs can contribute to hazardous system states; and, second, describing how argumentation patterns can capture the reasoning that can be used to assure HCM mitigation. Our framework is generic in the sense that the categories of HCMs developed i) can admit different learning schemes, i.e., supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning, and ii) are not dependent on the type of system in which the LECs are embedded, i.e., both cyber and cyber-physical systems. One of the goals of this work is to serve a starting point for systematizing L analysis towards eventually automating it in a tool.

Smith, Colin↗
NASA NTRS2018

A Hybrid Method of Assurance Cases and Testing for Improved Confidence in Autonomous Space Systems

Autonomous systems react intelligently to their environments, making them capable of handling many possible conditions, but challenging to test. We are investigating a new test development method that aims to maximize the confidence to be achieved by combining Assurance Cases with High Throughput Testing (HTT). Assurance Cases, developed for safety-critical systems, are a rigorous argument that the system satisfies a property (e.g., the Mars rover will not tip over during a traverse). They integrate testing, analysis, and environmental and operational assumptions, from which the set of conditions that testing must cover is determined. In our method, information from the Assurance Case is used to determine the test coverage needed, and then input to HTT to generate the minimal test suites needed to provide that coverage.

Huntsberger, Terry↗