Defeater Cards: Characterizing and Managing Safety Assurance Case Defeaters

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11462v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 21:33:07 GMT
• Title: Defeater Cards: Characterizing and Managing Safety Assurance Case Defeaters
• Abstract summary: Safety assurance cases provide structured justifications that safety-critical systems meet their safety requirements.<n>Recently, the notion of defeaters has emerged as a rigorous means of challenging the validity of safety arguments.<n>We propose Defeater Cards, a new structured documentation artifact for systematically characterizing, reasoning about, and managing defeaters in safety cases.
• Score: 4.510181955306307
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Safety assurance cases provide structured justifications that safety-critical systems meet their safety requirements. Recently, the notion of defeaters has emerged as a rigorous means of challenging the validity of safety arguments. Examples of defeaters might include overly strict claims, unreliable evidence, or reasoning gaps. However, defeaters remain ad hoc, lack structured support for critical reflection, are inconsistently described, are difficult to review, and lack documentation standards. To address this, we propose Defeater Cards, a new structured documentation artifact for systematically characterizing, reasoning about, and managing defeaters in safety cases. Drawing on a literature survey and thematic analysis, we identify documentation criteria that inform the card's structure, based on the 5W1H framework. Defeater Cards are designed to support informed analysis and evolution, improve traceability and auditability, and enable the reuse of defeater knowledge across systems and product variants. We demonstrate their applicability through two cross-domain case studies, showing how they expose hidden assumptions, surface reasoning gaps, and support ongoing safety assurance case evolution. To support adoption and community reuse, we also release an open-source repository of defeater cards as a baseline upon which researchers and practitioners can build and describe lessons learned.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• Adversarial Attacks for Good: A Survey of Proactive Protection across the Visual Content Lifecycle [65.6642776933861]
  This survey examines the protective paradigm that has grown around this intervention point.<n>We find that most protections are still validated mainly against static or weakly adaptive adversaries.<n>We close by consolidating cross-stage countermeasures and open problems for robust, composable, and deployable owner-side protection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T00:46:50Z)
• Safeguards Based on Copyable Context Cannot Provide Reliable Safety for LLMs [61.39153106347947]
  Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used.<n>This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history.<n>We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T09:59:08Z)
• Position: Behavioural Assurance Cannot Verify the Safety Claims Governance Now Demands [4.125187280299246]
  We argue that behavioural assurance, even when carefully designed, is being asked to carry safety claims it cannot verify.<n>We formalize this structural mismatch as the audit gap, the divergence between required and achievable verification access, and introduce the concept of fragile assurance.<n>We propose a technical pivot: bounding the weight of behavioral evidence in legal text and extending voluntary pre-deployment access with mechanistic-evidence classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T17:54:28Z)
• When Models Outthink Their Safety: Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models with Chain-of-Guardrails [74.63933201261595]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities on complex reasoning tasks.<n>LRMs remain vulnerable to severe safety risks, including harmful content generation and jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose the Chain-of-Guardrail (CoG), a training framework that recomposes or backtracks unsafe reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:32:25Z)
• ARMOR: Aligning Secure and Safe Large Language Models via Meticulous Reasoning [64.32925552574115]
  ARMOR is a large language model that analyzes jailbreak strategies and extracts the core intent.<n> ARMOR achieves state-of-the-art safety performance, with an average harmful rate of 0.002 and an attack success rate of 0.06 against advanced optimization-based jailbreaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T09:05:54Z)
• Benchmarking Misuse Mitigation Against Covert Adversaries [80.74502950627736]
  Existing language model safety evaluations focus on overt attacks and low-stakes tasks.<n>We develop Benchmarks for Stateful Defenses (BSD), a data generation pipeline that automates evaluations of covert attacks and corresponding defenses.<n>Our evaluations indicate that decomposition attacks are effective misuse enablers, and highlight stateful defenses as a countermeasure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T17:33:33Z)
• Towards Copyright Protection for Knowledge Bases of Retrieval-augmented Language Models via Reasoning [58.57194301645823]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into real-world personalized applications.<n>The valuable and often proprietary nature of the knowledge bases used in RAG introduces the risk of unauthorized usage by adversaries.<n>Existing methods that can be generalized as watermarking techniques to protect these knowledge bases typically involve poisoning or backdoor attacks.<n>We propose name for harmless' copyright protection of knowledge bases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T09:15:56Z)
• A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases [4.4398355848251745]
  The software engineering community could benefit from having a reusable classification of real-world defeaters in software assurance cases.<n>We derived a taxonomy with seven broad categories, laying the groundwork for standardizing the analysis and management of defeaters in safety-critical systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T00:38:41Z)
• Illusions of Relevance: Using Content Injection Attacks to Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges [52.96987928118327]
  We find that embedding models for retrieval, rerankers, and large language model (LLM) relevance judges are vulnerable to content injection attacks.<n>We identify two primary threats: (1) inserting unrelated or harmful content within passages that still appear deceptively "relevant", and (2) inserting entire queries or key query terms into passages to boost their perceived relevance.<n>Our study systematically examines the factors that influence an attack's success, such as the placement of injected content and the balance between relevant and non-relevant material.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:02:15Z)
• CoDefeater: Using LLMs To Find Defeaters in Assurance Cases [4.4398355848251745]
  This paper proposes CoDefeater, an automated process to leverage large language models (LLMs) for finding defeaters. Initial results on two systems show that LLMs can efficiently find known and unforeseen feasible defeaters to support safety analysts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T17:16:35Z)
• A PRISMA-Driven Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on Assurance Case Patterns [7.930875992631788]
  Assurance cases can be used to prevent system failure. They are structured arguments that allow arguing and relaying various safety-critical systems' requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T05:00:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.