arXiv AI

Defining Operational Conditions for Safety-Critical AI-Based Systems from Data

arXiv AI
Sep 3

From High-Dimensional Spaces to Verifiable ODD Coverage for Safety-Critical AI-based Systems

The paper proposes a structured method for verifying Operational Design Domain (ODD) coverage in safety‑critical AI systems, particularly for aviation. It combines parameter discretization, constraint‑based filtering, and criticality‑based dimension reduction to create a multi‑step verification process. Using simulation data from AI‑based mid‑air collision avoidance research, the authors demonstrate how this approach can meet EASA’s requirement for complete ODD coverage in high‑dimensional spaces.

By Thomas Stefani, Johann Maximilian Christensen, Elena Hoemann, Frank K\"oster, Sven Hallerbach
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Coverage-Driven Verification for Safety-by-Design in AI-Based Collision Avoidance Systems

The paper proposes a structured method for assessing the representativeness of Operational Design Domains (ODDs) in AI/ML-based aviation systems, focusing on safety assurance. It outlines a process flow from ODD definition to quantitative evaluation, recommending Kullback–Leibler divergence and Cramér’s V over chi‑squared tests for large datasets. The approach is illustrated with AI-based collision avoidance simulations, demonstrating how statistical distribution comparisons can support safety‑by‑design engineering aligned with EASA guidance.

By Thomas Stefani, Johann Maximilian Christensen, Elena Hoemann, Frank K\"oster, Sven Hallerbach
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4

Robust and Personalized Federated Learning for Aircraft-Engine Prognostics under Benign and Adversarial Client Heterogeneity

Federated learning (FL) enables aircraft fleet operators to jointly train remaining-useful-life (RUL) models from engine sensor telemetry without sharing raw data. This study examines two complementary challenges: benign heterogeneity, where honest operators observe different operating conditions and fault modes, and adversarial heterogeneity, where compromised operators submit poisoned updates.

arXiv AI
5d ago

Toward a Decision-Assurance Layer for AI-Assisted Flight Planning in Air Traffic Management

arXiv:2609.13552v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI is increasingly being used informally in Air Traffic Management (ATM) for tasks such as flight plan generation, trajectory interpretation...

By Alexandre Barreto (George Mason University), Shou Matsumoto (George Mason University), Jorge Valverde-Rebaza (Tecnol\'ogico de Monterrey), Cleiton Ataide (DECEA: Department of Airspace Control), Paulo Costa (George Mason University)
arXiv AI
Sep 4

FLY-EVAL++: An Evidence-Driven Evaluation Protocol for Safety-Constrained Flight Prediction with Large Language Models

FLY-EVAL++ is an evidence-driven evaluation protocol designed for safety-constrained flight prediction with large language models. It combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints with rubric-guided aggregation into interpretable multi-dimensional scores. Applied to Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction, the protocol revealed that safety compliance is the most discriminative dimension among 66 LLMs, with models showing up to 28-point differences in safety scores and recurrent failures such as safety violations under physically plausible predictions and instability in multi-step rollouts.

By Yalun Wu, Junfeng Fang, Jiawei Wang, Haotian Liu, Qijun Yang, Minghan Yang, Hongcheng Guo, Zhoujun Li, Boyang Wang
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

FLY-EVAL++: An Evidence-Driven Evaluation Protocol for Safety-Constrained Flight Prediction with Large Language Models

FLY-EVAL++ is an evidence-driven evaluation protocol designed for safety-constrained flight prediction with large language models. It combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints, then aggregates results into interpretable multi-dimensional scores. Applied to Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction, the protocol reveals that safety compliance is the most discriminative metric, with models of similar predictive accuracy differing by over 28 points in safety score and exhibiting recurrent safety violations and instability in multi-step rollouts.