Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Exploring the Relationship Between "Positive Risk Balance" and "Absence of Unreasonable Risk"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2110.10566 v1 pith:S5YJESFC submitted 2021-10-20 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords riskwillabsencebalancedifferentimportantinternationalinterpretations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

International discussions on the overarching topic of how to define and quantify what a "safe enough" Automated Driving System (ADS) is are currently hinged on the question of determining the relationship between "positive risk balance" (PRB) and "absence of unreasonable risk" (AUR). In order to advance the conversation on these important safety topics at the international level, it is first important to start from a shared common understanding, grounded in clear definitions and terminology. To that end, this paper will start with an overview of the notions of PRB and AUR; it will then summarize different positions of the present debate; finally, it will conclude that two possible interpretations exist for PRB, and that failure to distinguish them can lead to misunderstanding different parties' positions. The argumentation in this paper is aimed at showing that the two interpretations for PRB can actually complement each other, but can be considered independently, and can both be subsumed within non-prescriptive guidelines toward ADS safety assurance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Assessing a Safety Case: Bottom-up Guidance for Claims and Evidence Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper defines scoring rubrics for claim support (procedural and implementation) and evidence status, forming a bottom-up method for ADS safety case credibility assessment.

Pith tools