Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Confidence in Assurance 2.0 Cases

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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 2409.10665 v2 pith:UFD6V3UC submitted 2024-09-16 cs.SE

Robin Bloomfield , John Rushby This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords confidenceassuranceapproachassessedassessmentcallcasecases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

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. Where AI Assurance Might Go Wrong: Initial lessons from engineering of critical systems

    cs.CY 2025-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A position paper mapping traditional critical systems engineering to AI safety frameworks and advocating Assurance 2.0-style cases, broader boundaries, and explicit risk tolerability.

Pith tools