<XML><RECORDS><RECORD><REFERENCE_TYPE>3</REFERENCE_TYPE><REFNUM>7805</REFNUM><AUTHORS><AUTHOR>Johnson,C.W.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Holloway,C.M.</AUTHOR></AUTHORS><YEAR>2003</YEAR><TITLE>Strengths and Weaknesses of Logic Formalisms to Support the Causal Analysis of Mishaps</TITLE><PLACE_PUBLISHED>In G. Einarsson and B. Fletcher (eds), Proceedings of the 21st International Systems Safety Conference, 2003 </PLACE_PUBLISHED><PUBLISHER>N/A</PUBLISHER><PAGES>1133-1142</PAGES><ISBN>0-9721385-2-8</ISBN><LABEL>Johnson:2003:7805</LABEL><KEYWORDS><KEYWORD>Causal Analysis</KEYWORD></KEYWORDS<ABSTRACT>The increasing complexity of many safety critical systems poses new problems for mishap analysis. Techniques developed in the sixties and seventies cannot easily scale-up to analyze incidents involving tightly integrated software and hardware components. Similarly, the realization that many failures have systemic causes has widened the scope of many mishap investigations. Organizations, including NASA and the NTSB, have responded by starting research and training initiatives to ensure that their personnel are well equipped to meet these challenges. One strand of research has identified a range of mathematically based techniques that can be used to reason about the causes of complex, adverse events. The proponents of these techniques have argued that they can be used to formally prove that certain events created the necessary and sufficient causes for a mishap to occur. Mathematical proofs can reduce the bias that is often perceived to effect the interpretation of adverse events. Others have opposed the introduction of these techniques by identifying social and political aspects to incident investigation that cannot easily be reconciled with a logic-based approach. Traditional theorem proving mechanisms cannot accurately capture the wealth of inductive, deductive and statistical forms of inference that investigators routinely use in their analysis of adverse events. This paper summarizes the benefits that these logics provide. We introduce their weaknesses and propose a number of directions for future research. </ABSTRACT></RECORD></RECORDS></XML>