CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Safety Systems Engineering in AutonomyAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Safety Argumentation for Machinery Assembly Control Software

Castellanos-Ardila, Julieth Patricia, Punnekkat, Sasikumar, Hansson, Hans, Backeman, Peter·2024·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-68606-1_16
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-031-68606-1_16

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Ayoub, A., Kim, B.G., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: A systematic approach to justifying sufficient confidence in software safety arguments. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33678-2_26 · DOI
  2. Bate, I., Hawkins, R., McDermid, J.: A contract-based approach to designing safe systems. In: 8th Workshop on Safety-critical Systems and Software (2003)
  3. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Governatori, G.: Compliance-aware engineering process plans: the case of space software engineering processes. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–41 (2021) · DOI
  4. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Punekkat, S., Hansson, H., Grante, C.: Arguing operational safety for mixed traffic in underground mining. In: 18th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference (2023) · DOI
  5. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Punnekkat, S., Fattouh, A., Hansson, H.: A context-specific operational design domain for underground mining (ODD-UM). In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15559-8_12 · DOI
  6. Chechik, M., Salay, R., Viger, T., Kokaly, S., Rahimi, M.: Software assurance in an uncertain world. In: Hähnle, R., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) FASE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 3–21. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_1 · DOI
  7. Cheng, J., Goodrum, M., Metoyer, R., Cleland, J.: How do practitioners perceive assurance cases in safety-critical software systems? In: Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 57–60 (2018) · DOI
  8. Gallina, B., Olesen, T.Y., Parajdi, E., Aarup, M.: A knowledge management strategy for seamless compliance with the machinery regulation. In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42307-9_17 · DOI
  9. Graydon, P., Bate, I.: The nature and content of safety contracts: challenges and suggestions for a way forward. In: 20th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing, pp. 135–144. IEEE (2014) · DOI
  10. Habli, I., Hawkins, R., Kelly, T.: Software safety: relating software assurance and software integrity. Int. J. Crit. Comput.-Based Syst. 1(4), 364–383 (2010) · DOI
  11. Hawkins, R., Kelly, T.: Software safety assurance-what is sufficient? In: 4th IET International Conference on Systems Safety 2009. Incorporating the SaRS Annual Conference, pp. 1–6. IET (2009) · DOI
  12. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7: ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026:2019. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software assurance (2019)
  13. Javed, M.A., Muram, F.U., Hansson, H., Punnekkat, S., Thane, H.: Towards dynamic safety assurance for Industry 4.0. J. Syst. Arch. (2021) · DOI
  14. Kelly, T.P.: Arguing safety: a systematic approach to managing safety cases. Ph.D. thesis, University of York (1999)
  15. McDermid, J.A.: Software safety: where’s the evidence? In: 6th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software, pp. 1–6 (2001)
  16. Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992) · DOI · Paper page
  17. Porras, A., Romero, J.A.: A new methodology for facilitating the design of safety-related parts of control systems in machines according to ISO 13849:2006 standard. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf. 174, 60–70 (2018) · DOI
  18. Söderberg, A., Johansson, R.: Safety contract-based design of software components. In: International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (2013) · DOI
  19. Weaver, R.A.: The safety of software: constructing and assuring arguments. Ph.D. thesis (2003)
  20. Ye, F.: Justifying the use of COTS Components within safety critical applications. Ph.D. thesis, Citeseer (2005)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Castellanos-Ardila, J. P., Punnekkat, S., Hansson, H., & Backeman, P.
Affiliations
Mälardalen University (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Published
2024
Pages
251-266
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-031-68606-1_16
OpenAlex
W4402338970
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Reliability and Analysis Research
Keywords
safety argumentation, Machinery Directive, Goal Structuring Notation, contracts, safety goals, software safety requirements, safety case, mining equipment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review