Automated driving systems are safety-critical cyber-physical systems whose safety of the intended functionality (SOTIF) can not be assumed without proper argumentation based on appropriate evidences. Recent advances in standards and regulations on the safety of driving automation are therefore intensely concerned with demonstrating that the intended functionality of these systems does not introduce unreasonable risks to stakeholders. In this work, we critically analyze the ISO 21448 standard which contains requirements and guidance on how the SOTIF can be provably validated. Emphasis lies on developing a consistent terminology as a basis for the subsequent definition of a validation strategy when using quantitative acceptance criteria. In the broad picture, we aim to achieve a well-defined risk decomposition that enables rigorous, quantitative validation approaches for the SOTIF of automated driving systems.

The homologation of automated vehicles, being safety-critical complex systems, requires sound evidence for their safe operability. Traditionally, verification and validation activities are guided by a combination of ISO 26262 and ISO/PAS 21448, together with distance-based testing. Starting at SAE Level 3, such approaches become infeasible, resulting in the need for novel methods. Scenario-based testing is regarded as a possible enabler for verification and validation of automated vehicles. Its effectiveness, however, rests on the consistency and substantiality of the arguments used in each step of the process. In this work, we sketch a generic framework around scenario-based testing and analyze contemporary approaches to the individual steps. For each step, we describe its function, discuss proposed approaches and solutions, and identify the underlying arguments, principles and assumptions. As a result, we present a list of fundamental considerations for which evidences need to be gathered in order for scenario-based testing to support the homologation of automated vehicles.

Software and system dependability is getting ever more important in embedded system design. Current industrial practice of model-based analysis is supported by state-transition diagrammatic notations such as Statecharts. State-of-the-art modelling tools like Statemate support safety and failure-effect analysis at design time, but restricted to qualitative properties. This paper reports on a (plug-in) extension of Statemate enabling the evaluation of quantitative dependability properties at design time. The extension is compositional in the way the model is augmented with probabilistic timing information. This fact is exploited in the construction of the underlying mathematical model, a uniform continuous-time Markov decision process, on which we are able to check requirements of the form: "The probability to hit a safety-critical system configuration within a mission time of 3 hours is at most 0.01." We give a detailed explanation of the construction and evaluation steps making this possible, and report on a nontrivial case study of a high-speed train signalling system where the tool has been applied successfully.