Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.13948 v3 pith:SD7RDFZW submitted 2024-07-18 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords systemsperspectivedependabilityassuranceelementsprinciplesapplyartificial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We outline the principles of classical assurance for computer-based systems that pose significant risks. We then consider application of these principles to systems that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). A key element in this "dependability" perspective is a requirement for thorough understanding of the behavior of critical components, and this is considered infeasible for AI and ML. Hence the dependability perspective aims to minimize trust in AI and ML elements by using "defense in depth" with a hierarchy of less complex systems, some of which may be highly assured conventionally engineered components, to "guard" them. This may be contrasted with the "trustworthy" perspective that seeks to apply assurance to the AI and ML elements themselves. In cyber-physical and many other systems, it is difficult to provide guards that do not depend on AI and ML to perceive their environment (e.g., vehicles sharing the road with a self-driving car), so both perspectives are needed and there is a continuum or spectrum between them. We focus on architectures toward the dependability end of the continuum and invite others to consider additional points along the spectrum. For guards that require perception using AI and ML, we examine ways to minimize the trust placed in these elements; they include diversity, defense in depth, explanations, and micro-ODDs. We also examine methods to enforce acceptable behavior, given a model of the world. These include classical cyber-physical calculations and envelopes, and normative rules based on overarching principles, constitutions, ethics, or reputation. We apply our perspective to autonomous systems, AI systems for specific functions, general-purpose AI such as Large Language Models (LLMs), and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and we propose current best practice and conclude with a fourfold agenda for research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Safety case template for frontier AI: A cyber inability argument

    cs.CY 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A proof-of-concept safety case template formalizes an inability argument for offensive cyber risk using risk models, proxy tasks, and evaluation results.

  2. Where AI Assurance Might Go Wrong: Initial lessons from engineering of critical systems

    cs.CY 2025-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A position paper mapping traditional critical systems engineering to AI safety frameworks and advocating Assurance 2.0-style cases, broader boundaries, and explicit risk tolerability.

  3. From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AI

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CPSAINT/FRIESA-K couples failure-path structure to a multiplicative residual-risk score with a Markov-derived resistance term, demonstrated only on parameter-assigned synthetic scenarios.

Pith tools