Assessing the Impact of GPT-4 Turbo in Generating Defeaters for Assurance Cases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assurance cases (ACs) are structured arguments that allow verifying the correct implementation of the created systems' non-functional requirements (e.g., safety, security). This allows for preventing system failure. The latter may result in catastrophic outcomes (e.g., loss of lives). ACs support the certification of systems in compliance with industrial standards, e.g., DO-178C and ISO 26262. Identifying defeaters ---arguments that challenge these ACs --- is crucial for enhancing ACs' robustness and confidence. To automatically support that task, we propose a novel approach that explores the potential of GPT-4 Turbo, an advanced Large Language Model (LLM) developed by OpenAI, in identifying defeaters within ACs formalized using the Eliminative Argumentation (EA) notation. Our preliminary evaluation assesses the model's ability to comprehend and generate arguments in this context and the results show that GPT-4 turbo is very proficient in EA notation and can generate different types of defeaters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it