信心保证 2.0 案例

arXiv - CS - Software Engineering Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:arxiv-2409.10665

Robin Bloomfield, John Rushby

{"title":"信心保证 2.0 案例","authors":"Robin Bloomfield, John Rushby","doi":"arxiv-2409.10665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An assurance case should provide justifiable confidence in the truth of a\nclaim about some critical property of a system or procedure, such as safety or\nsecurity. We consider how confidence can be assessed in the rigorous approach\nwe call Assurance 2.0. Our goal is indefeasible confidence and we approach it from four different\nperspectives: logical soundness, probabilistic assessment, dialectical\nexamination, and residual risks.","PeriodicalId":501278,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confidence in Assurance 2.0 Cases\",\"authors\":\"Robin Bloomfield, John Rushby\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.10665\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An assurance case should provide justifiable confidence in the truth of a\\nclaim about some critical property of a system or procedure, such as safety or\\nsecurity. We consider how confidence can be assessed in the rigorous approach\\nwe call Assurance 2.0. Our goal is indefeasible confidence and we approach it from four different\\nperspectives: logical soundness, probabilistic assessment, dialectical\\nexamination, and residual risks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.10665\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.10665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

保证案例应为系统或程序的某些关键属性（如安全或保障）声明的真实性提供合理的信心。我们考虑如何通过我们称之为 "保证 2.0 "的严格方法来评估可信度。我们的目标是不可辩驳的可信度，我们从四个不同的角度来看待这个问题：逻辑合理性、概率评估、辩证审查和残余风险。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Confidence in Assurance 2.0 Cases

An assurance case should provide justifiable confidence in the truth of a claim about some critical property of a system or procedure, such as safety or security. We consider how confidence can be assessed in the rigorous approach we call Assurance 2.0. Our goal is indefeasible confidence and we approach it from four different perspectives: logical soundness, probabilistic assessment, dialectical examination, and residual risks.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

arXiv - CS - Software Engineering

自引率

0.00%

发文量