The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
An Integrated Failure and Threat Mode and Effect Analysis (FTMEA) Framework with Quantified Cross-Domain Correlation Factors for Automotive Semiconductors
Open accessAbstract
The automotive industry faces increasing challenges in ensuring both functional safety (FuSa) and cybersecurity for complex semiconductor devices. Traditional Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) primarily addresses safety-related failure modes, often overlooking synergistic vulnerabilities and shared consequences with cybersecurity threats. This paper introduces an Integrated Failure and Threat Mode and Effect Analysis (FTMEA) framework that systematically co-analyzes FuSa and cybersecurity. A cornerstone of this framework is the introduction of rigorously defined Cross-Domain Correlation Factors (CDCFs), which quantify the interdependencies and mutual influences between safety-related failures and cybersecurity threats. These factors are derived from a combination of structured expert knowledge, static structural analysis metrics (e.g., Controllability/Observability), and validated against empirical data from fault/attack injection campaigns. We propose a modified Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculation that systematically integrates these correlation factors, enabling a more accurate and transparent prioritization of risks that span both domains. A detailed case study involving an automotive ASIC configuration register proves the practical application of the FTMEA. We present explicit mapping tables, quantitative CDCF values, and a comparative analysis against a baseline FMEA/TARA (Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment), illustrating how the integrated approach uncovers previously masked cross-domain risks, improves mitigation strategy effectiveness, and provides a clear quantitative justification for the derived correlation values. This framework offers a unified, traceable, methodology for risk assessment in critical automotive systems, thereby overcoming the limitations of conventional analyses and promoting optimized, cross-disciplinary development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Armato, A., Khatun, M., & Fischer, S.
- Affiliations
- Robert Bosch (Germany) (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2603.06299
- OpenAlex
- W7134264130
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Radiation Effects in Electronics
- Keywords
- failure mode and effects analysis, automotive semiconductors, automotive cybersecurity, functional safety, risk priority number, fault injection, attack injection, risk prioritization, risk mitigation
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
