Abstract
Most public assurance arguments are used to introduce, discuss, and present novel concepts and techniques related to structured argumentation. These examples often rely on generic claims such as “All hazards have been identified” and generic patterns of reasoning and are quite different from their fully developed industrial counterparts. This practical experience report describes a medium-size assurance case argument for the CERN Large Hadron Collider Machine Protection System expressed using Eliminative Argumentation. This assurance case with 509 nodes was created in approximately three months, validated in collaboration with CERN experts, and is now publicly available. We also report on our practical experience in creating this argument and reflect on the support provided by the features of the collaborative assurance case editor we used called Socrates.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Diemert, S., Joyce, J.: Eliminative argumentation for arguing system safety - A practitioner’s experience. In: International Systems Conference (SysCon), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2020)
LHC MPS argument. www.cds.cern.ch/record/2854725/files/ (02 2023)
Ghafari, N., Kumar, R., Joyce, J., Dehning, B., Zamantzas, C.: Formal verification of real-time data processing of the lhc beam loss monitoring system: a case study. In: Salaün, G., Schätz, B. (eds.) FMICS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6959, pp. 212–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24431-5_16
Goodenough, J., Weinstock, C., Klein, A.: Eliminative argumentation: A basis for arguing confidence in system properties. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2015-TR-005, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2015). www.resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=434805
Goodenough, J.B., Weinstock, C.B., Klein, A.Z.: Eliminative Induction: A Basis for Arguing System Confidence. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1161–1164. IEEE (2013)
Group, A.C.W.: Goal structuring notation community standard - version 3. Tech. rep., Safety Critical Systems Club (2021). www.scsc.uk/r141C:1?t=1
Holzer, E.B., et al.: Beam loss monitoring for LHC machine protection. Phys. Procedia 37, 2055–2062 (2012)
Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety-a systematic approach to safety case management. DPhil Thesis York University, Department of Computer Science (1999)
Koopman, P.: The UL 4600 Guidebook: What to Include in an Autonomous Vehicle Safety Case. Carnegie Mellon University (2022)
Menghi, C., Viger, T., Di Sandro, A., Rees, C., Joyce, J., Chechik, M.: Assurance Case Development as Data: A Manifesto. In: International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER), pp. 135–139. IEEE/ACM (2023)
CERN Website. www.cern.ch (04 2022)
Socrates. www.safetycasepro.com/welcome (04 2022)
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [funding reference numbers RGPIN-2022-04622, DGECR-2022-0040, RGPIN-2015-06366].
We thank Mateo Delgado and Rolf Lippelt for their contribution, and CERN experts Jan Uythoven Markus Zerlauth, and Lukas Felsberger for their review and feedback on the AC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Millet, L. et al. (2023). Assurance Case Arguments in the Large: The CERN LHC Machine Protection System. In: Guiochet, J., Tonetta, S., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14181. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40923-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40923-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40922-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40923-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)