Assurance 2.0: A Manifesto

AI-generated keywords: Assurance 2.0 Autonomous Systems Rapid Development Defeaters Counterevidence

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Challenges faced by system assurance in the modern era:
  • Emergence of autonomous systems driven by machine learning and AI
  • Need for ultra-rapid system development
  • Persistent issues in system assurance:
  • Requirement for efficient, effective, and timely assurance
  • Traditional assurance methods are often perceived as hindrances to innovation due to their high cost and time-consuming nature
  • Proposed modernized framework called Assurance 2.0:
  • Enables innovation while ensuring continuous incremental assurance
  • Introduces a more rigorous approach to assurance
  • Emphasizes reasoning and evidence during the assurance process
  • Aims for explicit identification of defeaters and counterevidence
  • Assurance 2.0 supports innovation while maintaining a robust assurance process
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Robin Bloomfield (Adelard LLP and City, University of London), John Rushby (SRI International)

Abstract: System assurance is confronted by significant challenges. Some of these are new, for example, autonomous systems with major functions driven by machine learning and AI, and ultra-rapid system development, while others are the familiar, persistent issues of the need for efficient, effective and timely assurance. Traditional assurance is seen as a brake on innovation and often costly and time consuming. We therefore propose a modernized framework, Assurance 2.0, as an enabler that supports innovation and continuous incremental assurance. Perhaps unexpectedly, it does so by making assurance more rigorous, with increased focus on the reasoning and evidence employed, and explicit identification of defeaters and counterevidence.

Submitted to arXiv on 22 Apr. 2020

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2004.10474v3

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In their paper titled "Assurance 2.0: A Manifesto," authors Robin Bloomfield and John Rushby address the challenges faced by system assurance in the modern era. They highlight two main challenges: the emergence of autonomous systems driven by machine learning and AI, and the need for ultra-rapid system development. These challenges are accompanied by persistent issues such as the requirement for efficient, effective, and timely assurance. The authors argue that traditional assurance methods are often perceived as hindrances to innovation due to their perceived high cost and time-consuming nature. To address this problem, they propose a modernized framework called Assurance 2.0. Contrary to expectations, this framework actually enables innovation while ensuring continuous incremental assurance. Assurance 2.0 achieves this by introducing a more rigorous approach to assurance. It places increased emphasis on reasoning and evidence employed during the assurance process, aiming for explicit identification of defeaters (factors that can undermine confidence) and counterevidence (evidence contradicting expected outcomes). By adopting these practices, Assurance 2.0 aims to support innovation while maintaining a robust assurance process. Overall, Bloomfield and Rushby's manifesto presents Assurance 2.0 as an enabler rather than a hindrance to innovation in system assurance. It offers a modernized framework that addresses the challenges posed by autonomous systems and rapid development, making assurance more rigorous through enhanced focus on reasoning, evidence, defeaters, and counterevidence.
Created on 04 Dec. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.