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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20864v1
• Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 08:32:53 GMT
• Title: Coverage-Driven Verification for Safety-by-Design in AI-Based Collision Avoidance Systems
• Abstract summary: This work presents a method for representativeness assessment of AI/ML constituent ODDs in the context of aviation safety assurance.<n>As quantitative measures, the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test is examined and found unsuitable for the large data sets arising in this setting.<n>The method is demonstrated using the example of AI-based airborne collision avoidance.
• Score: 0.7285647284266376
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers significant potential for future aviation systems; however, its integration into safety-critical applications requires compliance with the aviation sector's stringent safety standards. For AI and Machine Learning (ML)-based systems, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) emphasizes the need to demonstrate the representativeness and completeness of the Operational Design Domain (ODD) and the associated data distributions used during development and verification. Despite this requirement, a structured engineering process for defining target distributions and evaluating representativeness within ODDs remains largely unexplored. This work presents a method for representativeness assessment of AI/ML constituent ODDs in the context of aviation safety assurance. Starting from the methodical identification of suitable target distributions, a process flow is proposed that guides developers from ODD definition and parameter distribution modeling to the quantitative assessment and interpretation of coverage results with respect to EASA's learning assurance objectives. As quantitative measures, the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test is examined and found unsuitable for the large data sets arising in this setting, leading to the adoption of the Kullback--Leibler divergence and Cramér's $V$ for the representativeness assessment. The method is demonstrated using the example of AI-based airborne collision avoidance, employing experimental data from previous Horizontal Collision Avoidance System (HCAS) and Vertical Collision Avoidance System (VCAS) simulations. The results illustrate how statistical distribution comparison methods can support the assessment of representativeness for safety-critical AI applications and contribute toward a systematic Safety-by-Design AI engineering process aligned with emerging EASA guidance.

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)
• Generative Responsible AI Data Evaluation Schema (GRAIDES) for AI Assurance in Local Government [0.0]
  We introduce the Generative Responsible Data Evaluation (GRAIDES) as a lightweight open-source data model for centralising AI observability across popular vendors.<n> Practical blueprints for code, architecture and statistical evaluation are shared as guidance about how to approach generative system assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T22:00:25Z)
• Evaluating Explainability in Safety-Critical ATR Systems: Limitations of Post-Hoc Methods and Paths Toward Robust XAI [2.3099144596725574]
  This paper presents a structured evaluation of explainability methods in the context of safety-critical ATR systems.<n>We identify major XAI paradigms, including saliency-based, attention-based, and surrogate ap proaches.<n>We derive critical failure modes such as spurious explanations, instability under perturbations, and overtrust induced by visually con vincing outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T06:42:08Z)
• From High-Dimensional Spaces to Verifiable ODD Coverage for Safety-Critical AI-based Systems [0.7285647284266376]
  Current EASA guidelines mandate complete coverage of the AI/ML constituent's Operational Design Domain (ODD)<n>No standardized engineering method exists to bridge the gap between abstract ODD definitions and verifiable evidence.<n>This paper proposes a method that integrates parameter discretization, constraint-based filtering, and criticality-based dimension reduction into a structured, multi-step ODD coverage verification process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T15:52:35Z)
• Detecting Cybersecurity Threats by Integrating Explainable AI with SHAP Interpretability and Strategic Data Sampling [0.0]
  The framework addresses three fundamental challenges in deploying AI for threat detection.<n>Our approach maintains detection efficacy while reducing computational overhead.<n>It provides a robust foundation for deploying trustworthy AI systems in security operations centers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-22T08:01:14Z)
• ANNIE: Be Careful of Your Robots [48.89876809734855]
  We present the first systematic study of adversarial safety attacks on embodied AI systems.<n>We show attack success rates exceeding 50% across all safety categories.<n>Results expose a previously underexplored but highly consequential attack surface in embodied AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:00:28Z)
• Systematic Hazard Analysis for Frontier AI using STPA [0.0]
  frontier AI companies currently do not describe in detail any structured approach to identifying and analysing hazards.<n>A (Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis) is a systematic methodology for identifying how complex systems can become unsafe, leading to hazards.<n>We evaluateA's ability to broaden the scope, improve traceability and strengthen the robustness of safety assurance for frontier AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T15:28:34Z)
• Advancing Embodied Agent Security: From Safety Benchmarks to Input Moderation [52.83870601473094]
  Embodied agents exhibit immense potential across a multitude of domains.<n>Existing research predominantly concentrates on the security of general large language models.<n>This paper introduces a novel input moderation framework, meticulously designed to safeguard embodied agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T08:34:35Z)
• Computational Safety for Generative AI: A Signal Processing Perspective [65.268245109828]
  computational safety is a mathematical framework that enables the quantitative assessment, formulation, and study of safety challenges in GenAI.<n>We show how sensitivity analysis and loss landscape analysis can be used to detect malicious prompts with jailbreak attempts.<n>We discuss key open research challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of signal processing in computational AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:26:50Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Reinforcement Learning Models using Semi-Formal Verification [81.32981236437395]
  We present a semi-formal verification approach for decision-making tasks based on interval analysis. Our method obtains comparable results over standard benchmarks with respect to formal verifiers. Our approach allows to efficiently evaluate safety properties for decision-making models in practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T11:18:06Z)

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.