AdvoCATE: An Assurance Case Automation Toolset

  • Ewen Denney
  • Ganesh Pai
  • Josef Pohl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7613)


We present AdvoCATE, an Assurance Case Automation ToolsEt, to support the automated construction and assessment of safety cases. In addition to manual creation and editing, it has a growing suite of automated features. In this paper, we highlight its capabilities for (i) inclusion of specific metadata, (ii) translation to and from various formats, including those of other widely used safety case tools, (iii) composition, with auto-generated safety case fragments, and (iv) computation of safety case metrics which, we believe, will provide a transparent, quantitative basis for assessment of the state of a safety case as it evolves. The tool primarily supports the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), is compliant with the GSN Community Standard Version 1, and the Object Modeling Group Argumentation Metamodel (OMG ARM).


Assurance cases Safety cases Metrics Safety management Safety process Safety toolset Formal methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adelard LLP: Assurance and safety case environment (ASCE), (last accessed May 2011)
  2. 2.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: Goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 528–532. John Wiley (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basir, N., Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Deriving Safety Cases for Hierarchical Structure in Model-Based Development. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 68–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Generating customized verifiers for automatically generated code. In: Proc. Conf. Generative Programming and Component Eng., pp. 77–87 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denney, E., Habli, I., Pai, G.: Perspectives on software safety case development for unmanned aircraft. In: Proc. 42nd Intl. Conf. Dependable Systems and Networks (June 2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denney, E., Pai, G.: A Lightweight Methodology for Safety Case Assembly. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Towards measurement of confidence in safety cases. In: Proc. 5th Intl. Symp. Empirical Soft. Eng. and Measurement, pp. 380–383 (September 2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Pohl, J.: Heterogeneous aviation safety cases: integrating the formal and the non-formal. In: 17th IEEE Intl. Conf. Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (July 2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denney, E., Trac, S.: A software safety certification tool for automatically generated guidance, navigation and control code. In: IEEE Aerospace Conf. Electronic Proc. (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goal Structuring Notation Working Group: GSN Community Standard Version 1 (November 2011),
  11. 11.
    Graydon, P., Knight, J., Green, M.: Certification and safety cases. In: Proc. 28th Intl. System Safety Conf. (September 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly, T.P.: Reviewing Assurance Arguments - A Step-by-Step Approach. In: Proc. Workshop on Assurance Cases for Security - The Metrics Challenge, Dependable Systems and Networks (July 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kestrel Technology LLP and NASA Langley Research Center: CertWare tool, (last accessed May 2011)
  14. 14.
    Matsuno, Y., Takamura, H., Ishikawa, Y.: Dependability case editor with pattern library. In: Proc. 12th IEEE Intl. Symp. High-Assurance Systems Eng., pp. 170–171 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Research Council Committee on Certifiably Dependable Software Systems: Software for Dependable Systems: Sufficient Evidence? National Academies Press (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spriggs, J.: GSN - The Goal Structuring Notation. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steele, P., Collins, K., Knight, J.: ACCESS: A toolset for safety case creation and management. In: Proc. 29th Intl. Systems Safety Conf. (August 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    UK Ministry of Defence (MoD): Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems. Defence Standard 00-56, Issue 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration: System Safety Handbook. FAA (December 2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varró, D., Balogh, A.: The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework. Science of Computer Programming 68(3), 214–234 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wassyng, A., Maibaum, T., Lawford, M., Bherer, H.: Software Certification: Is There a Case against Safety Cases? In: Calinescu, R., Jackson, E. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2010. LNCS, vol. 6662, pp. 206–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewen Denney
    • 1
  • Ganesh Pai
    • 1
  • Josef Pohl
    • 1
  1. 1.SGT / NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations