Expert assessment of arguments: A method and its experimental evaluation

12Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Argument structures are commonly used to develop and present cases for safety, security and other properties. Such argument structures tend to grow excessively. To deal with this problem, appropriate methods of their assessment are required. Two objectives are of particular interest: (1) systematic and explicit assessment of the compelling power of an argument, and (2) communication of the result of such an assessment to relevant recipients. The paper gives details of a new method which deals with both problems. We explain how to issue assessments and how they can be aggregated depending on the types of inference used in arguments. The method is fully implemented in a software tool. Its application is illustrated by examples. The paper also includes the results of experiments carried out to validate and calibrate the method. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

References Powered by Scopus

Confidence: Its role in dependability cases for risk assessment

44Citations
45Readers
Get full text

Trust case: Justifying trust in an IT solution

34Citations
25Readers
Get full text

Conditional deduction under uncertainty

23Citations
18Readers
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

41Citations
23Readers
Get full text

An evidential reasoning approach for assessing confidence in safety evidence

31Citations
40Readers
Get full text

A systematic approach to justifying sufficient confidence in software safety arguments

25Citations
23Readers
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cyra, L., & Górski, J. (2008). Expert assessment of arguments: A method and its experimental evaluation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5219 LNCS, pp. 291–304). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87698-4_25

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘15‘17‘18‘19‘22‘2302468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

60%

Researcher 3

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 8

80%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1

10%

Engineering 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0