Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Argumentation”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

"Evidence" Under a Magnifying Glass: Thoughts on Safety Argument Epistemology

Common definitions of "safety case" emphasize that evidence is the basis of a safety argument, yet few widely referenced works explicitly define "evidence". Their examples suggest that similar things can be regarded as evidence. But the category evidence seems to contain (1) processes for finding things out, (2) information resulting from such processes, and (3) relevant documents. Moreover, any item of evidence could be replaced by further argument. Normative models of informal argumentation do not offer clear guidance on when a safety argument should cite evidence rather than appeal to a more detailed argument. Disciplines such as the law address the problem with a practical, domain-specific epistemology. In this paper, we explore these problems associated with evidence citations in safety arguments, identify goals for a theory of safety argument evidence and a practical safety argument epistemology, propose a model of safety evidence citation that advances the identified goals, and present a related extension to the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN).

Graydon, P. J.↗
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 NTRS2015

Formal Assurance Arguments: A Solution In Search of a Problem?

An assurance case comprises evidence and argument showing how that evidence supports assurance claims (e.g., about safety or security). It is unsurprising that some computer scientists have proposed formalizing assurance arguments: most associate formality with rigor. But while engineers can sometimes prove that source code refines a formal specification, it is not clear that formalization will improve assurance arguments or that this benefit is worth its cost. For example, formalization might reduce the benefits of argumentation by limiting the audience to people who can read formal logic. In this paper, we present (1) a systematic survey of the literature surrounding formal assurance arguments, (2) an analysis of errors that formalism can help to eliminate, (3) a discussion of existing evidence, and (4) suggestions for experimental work to definitively answer the question.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗
NASA NTRS2021

A Primer on Argument Assessment

This paper follows up A Primer on Argument by providing introductory information about how to assess arguments. The structure is as follows. The opening section identifies and summarizes prerequisite information a reader needs to understand to understand this document. Section 2 introduces a way (but not the only way) to assess atomic arguments. Section 3 does the same for compound arguments. Section 4 wraps everything up. Appendix A collects the crucial information in one place. Appendix B explicates a detailed assessment example. The paper is published as a white paper because it is intended to be updated as additional experience is gained with its use.

argument↗
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 NTRS2016

An Investigation of Proposed Techniques for Quantifying Confidence in Assurance Arguments

The use of safety cases in certification raises the question of assurance argument sufficiency and the issue of confidence (or uncertainty) in the argument's claims. Some researchers propose to model confidence quantitatively and to calculate confidence in argument conclusions. We know of little evidence to suggest that any proposed technique would deliver trustworthy results when implemented by system safety practitioners. Proponents do not usually assess the efficacy of their techniques through controlled experiment or historical study. Instead, they present an illustrative example where the calculation delivers a plausible result. In this paper, we review current proposals, claims made about them, and evidence advanced in favor of them. We then show that proposed techniques can deliver implausible results in some cases. We conclude that quantitative confidence techniques require further validation before they should be recommended as part of the basis for deciding whether an assurance argument justifies fielding a critical system.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Assurance Arguments for the Non-Graphically-Inclined: Two Approaches

We introduce and discuss two approaches to presenting assurance arguments. One approach is based on a monograph structure, while the other is based on a tabular structure. In today's research and academic setting, assurance cases often use a graphical notation; however for people who are not graphically inclined, these notations can be difficult to read. This document proposes, outlines, explains, and presents examples of two non-graphical assurance argument notations that may be appropriate for non-graphically-inclined readers and also provide argument writers with freedom to add details and manipulate an argument in multiple ways.

Heavner, Emily↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

False Beliefs about the Overarching Properties and Overarching Properties Related Arguments

False beliefs about new ideas are not new. They happen all the time, for a wide variety of reasons. Although the Overarching Properties are solidly grounded in time-honored principles, they constitute a novel expression of those ideas, and newness-based false beliefs about them are to be expected. Similarly, although Overarching Properties Related Arguments are solidly grounded in thousands of years of study of the principles of argumentation, they introduce concepts and applications that are novel to many engineers and engineering managers. So, false beliefs about them are also to be expected. Indeed, false beliefs have arisen and are spreading in the wild about both the Overarching Properties and Overarching Properties Related Arguments. This paper seeks to dispel three known false beliefs about each concept.

overarching properties↗
NASA NTRS2018

The Simple Assurance Argument Interchange Format (SAAIF) Manual

This document describes the Simple Assurance Argument Interchange Format, a proposed meta-model for describing structured assurance arguments. We describe the syntax and semantics of the model elements, compare the meta-model to existing argument formats, and give an example to illustrate its use.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Leveling Arguments: Easier Said Than Done

The aerospace industry’s current desire to rapidly adopt new technologies is inconsistent with the traditional approach to creating new aerospace certification standards. To address this, an FAA-sponsored international Overarching Properties Working Group comprising industry representatives and certifying agencies has introduced the concept of Overarching Properties (OPs). OPs provide a foundation for proposing alternative Means of Compliance (MoC) by demonstrating a product's possession of the Intent, Correctness, and Innocuity properties. Handling criticality levels with the OPs is in its infancy but still required to integrate alternative MoC into the existing aerospace certification infrastructure. This paper examines the impact of criticality levels on the creation and evaluation of OP-related arguments (OPRAs), specifically focusing on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) system. The study highlights the need for tailored OPRA creation based on assigned criticality levels and proposes self-assessment techniques to strengthen arguments. This research serves as a stepping stone in exploring criticality levels for OPs and bridging the gap in aerospace certification practices.

argument↗
NASA NTRS1996

Testing Functions of One and Two Arguments

Software to evaluate functions of one or two arguments is too often tested or certified, or the accuracy assessed, by ad hoc methods. Systematic methods to test, certify or assess the accuracy of single- or double-precision functions of one or two arguments, and supporting software, are described here.

software software evaluation arguments↗
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 NTRS2005

A Technique for Showing Causal Arguments in Accident Reports

In the prototypical accident report, specific findings, particularly those related to causes and contributing factors, are usually written out explicitly and clearly. Also, the evidence upon which these findings are based is typically explained in detail. Often lacking, however, is any explicit discussion, description, or depiction of the arguments that connect the findings and the evidence. That is, the reports do not make clear why the investigators believe that the specific evidence they found necessarily leads to the particular findings they enumerated. This paper shows how graphical techniques can be used to depict relevant arguments supporting alternate positions on the causes of a complex road-traffic accident.

Holloway, C. M.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Defining Baconian Probability for Use in Assurance Argumentation

The use of assurance cases (e.g., safety cases) in certification raises questions about confidence in assurance argument claims. Some researchers propose to assess confidence in assurance cases using Baconian induction. That is, a writer or analyst (1) identifies defeaters that might rebut or undermine each proposition in the assurance argument and (2) determines whether each defeater can be dismissed or ignored and why. Some researchers also propose denoting confidence using the counts of defeaters identified and eliminated-which they call Baconian probability-and performing arithmetic on these measures. But Baconian probabilities were first defined as ordinal rankings which cannot be manipulated arithmetically. In this paper, we recount noteworthy definitions of Baconian induction, review proposals to assess confidence in assurance claims using Baconian probability, analyze how these comport with or diverge from the original definition, and make recommendations for future practice.

Graydon, Patrick J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Primer on Argument (Overarching Properties Edition)

The purpose of this document is to establish for the Overarching Properties Working Group (OPWG) a common understanding of the terms, concepts, principles, and uses of argument. It emphasizes the practical over the theoretical and the simple over the complicated.

argument↗
NASA NTRS2021

A Primer on Argument

The purpose of this document is to provide a common understanding of terms, concepts, principles, and uses of argument. It emphasizes the practical over the theoretical and the simple over the complicated.

argument↗