A Survey of Tool-supported Assurance Case Assessment Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems deployed in regulated safety-critical domains (e.g., the medical, nuclear, and automotive domains) are often required to undergo a stringent safety assessment procedure, as prescribed by a certification body, to demonstrate their compliance to one or more certification standards. Assurance cases are an emerging way of communicating safety, security, and dependability, as well as other properties of safety-critical systems in a structured and comprehensive manner. The significant size and complexity of these documents, however, makes the process of evaluating and assessing their validity a non-trivial task and an active area of research. Due to this, efforts have been made to develop and utilize software tools for the purpose of aiding developers and third party assessors in the act of assessing and analyzing assurance cases. This article presents a survey of the various assurance case assessment features contained in 10 assurance case software tools, all of which identified and selected by us via a previously conducted systematic literature review. We describe the various assessment techniques implemented, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and identify possible areas in need of further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".