A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases

The rise of cyber-physical systems in safety-critical domains calls for robust risk-evaluation frameworks. Assurance cases, often required by regulatory bodies, are a structured approach to demonstrate that a system meets its safety requirements. However, assurance cases are fraught with challenges, such as incomplete evidence and gaps in reasoning, called defeaters, that can call into question the credibility and robustness of assurance cases. Identifying these defeaters increases confidence in the assurance case and can prevent catastrophic failures. The search for defeaters in an assurance case, however, is not structured, and there is a need to standardize defeater analysis. The software engineering community thus could benefit from having a reusable classification of real-world defeaters in software assurance cases. In this paper, we conducted a systematic study of literature from the past 20 years. Using open coding, we derived a taxonomy with seven broad categories, laying the groundwork for standardizing the analysis and management of defeaters in safety-critical systems. We provide our artifacts as open source for the community to use and build upon, thus establishing a common framework for understanding defeaters.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/mo2re66661.2025.00007
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.21

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases

Robyn R. Lutz, Myra B. Cohen, Usman Gohar, Michael C. Hunter
4 citations
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
5.21
article

A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases

Robyn R. Lutz, Myra B. Cohen, Usman Gohar, Michael C. Hunter
article en
4 citations

Abstract

The rise of cyber-physical systems in safety-critical domains calls for robust risk-evaluation frameworks. Assurance cases, often required by regulatory bodies, are a structured approach to demonstrate that a system meets its safety requirements. However, assurance cases are fraught with challenges, such as incomplete evidence and gaps in reasoning, called defeaters, that can call into question the credibility and robustness of assurance cases. Identifying these defeaters increases confidence in the assurance case and can prevent catastrophic failures. The search for defeaters in an assurance case, however, is not structured, and there is a need to standardize defeater analysis. The software engineering community thus could benefit from having a reusable classification of real-world defeaters in software assurance cases. In this paper, we conducted a systematic study of literature from the past 20 years. Using open coding, we derived a taxonomy with seven broad categories, laying the groundwork for standardizing the analysis and management of defeaters in safety-critical systems. We provide our artifacts as open source for the community to use and build upon, thus establishing a common framework for understanding defeaters.

Iowa State University (US)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
5.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.