Skip to main content

Towards an Argument Pattern for the Use of Safety Performance Indicators

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2024 Workshops (SAFECOMP 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14989))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 596 Accesses

Abstract

Highly automated driving functions pose challenges for the safety assurance due to their high complexity and the dynamic environment in which they operate. UL 4600, the safety standard for autonomous products, mandates the use of Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) to continuously ensure the validity of safety cases by monitoring and taking action when violations are identified. Despite numerous examples of concrete SPIs available in the standard and companion literature, their contribution rationale for achieving safety is often left implicit. In this paper, we present our initial work towards an argument pattern for the use of SPIs to ensure validity of safety cases throughout the entire lifecycle of the system. Our aim is to make the implicit argument behind using SPIs explicit, and based on this, to analyze the situations that can undermine confidence in the chosen set of SPIs. To maintain the confidence in SPIs’ effectiveness, we propose an approach to continuously monitor their expected performance by using meta-SPIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ul4600: Standard for evaluation of autonomous products (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  2. (ACWG), T.A.C.W.G.: Goal Structuring Notation community standard - version 3. Tech. rep. (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Dynamic safety cases for through-life safety assurance. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 587–590 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fayollas, C., Bonnin, H., Flebus, O.: SafeOps: a concept of continuous safety. In: 2020 16th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC), pp. 65–68 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gyllenhammar, M., Bergenhem, C., Warg, F.: ADS safety assurance - future directions. In: CARS: 6th International Workshop on Critical Automotive Applications: Robustness & Safety (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hawkins, R.D., Ryan Conmy, P.M.: Identifying run-time monitoring requirements for autonomous systems through the analysis of safety arguments. In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP), pp. 11–24 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Johanssonn, R., Koopman, P.: Continuous learning approach for safety engineering. In: CARS: 7th International Workshop on Critical Automotive Applications: Robustness & Safety (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Koopman, P.: How Safe is Safe Enough?: Measuring and Predicting Autonomous Vehicle Safety. Amazon Digital Services LLC (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Koopman, P.: Ul 4600: What to include in an autonomous vehicle safety case. Computer 56(05), 101–104 (may 2023)

    Google Scholar 

  10. McDermid, J.A., Jia, Y., Habli, I.: Towards a framework for safety assurance of autonomous systems. In: Artificial Intelligence Safety, pp. 1–7. CEUR Workshops (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wagner, M., Carlan, C.: The open autonomy safety case framework. Saf. Crit. Syst. eJournal 3(1)(2024)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Weyns, D., et al.: Perpetual assurances for self-adaptive systems. In: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems III. Assurances. Springer (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36249-1

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was partially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the project MANNHEIM-AutoDevSafeOps (011S22087R).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Ratiu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ratiu, D., Rohlinger, T., Stolte, T., Wagner, S. (2024). Towards an Argument Pattern for the Use of Safety Performance Indicators. In: Ceccarelli, A., Trapp, M., Bondavalli, A., Schoitsch, E., Gallina, B., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2024 Workshops. SAFECOMP 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14989. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68738-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68738-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-68737-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-68738-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics