The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

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

Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective

Reviewed by Pithpith:SD7RDFZWopen to challenge →

classification cs.AI
keywords systemsperspectivedependabilityassuranceelementsprinciplesapplyartificial
0
0 comments X
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.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. CEDAR-42001: From ISO/IEC 42001 Conformity to Architecture-Aware, Audit-Visible Assurance Posture for AI Cyber-Physical Systems

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CEDAR-42001 enriches ISO 42001 conformity audits for AI-CPS with architecture layer attribution, five-dimensional maturity profiles, risk-proportionate targets, and rulebook-derived actions, shown via synthetic fleet ...

  2. Not All Anquan Is the Same: A Terminological Proposal for Chinese Computer Science and Engineering

    cs.CY 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    Chinese computer science writing should adopt 'anbao' for security and keep 'anquan' mainly for safety to resolve terminological overload in discussions of harm and threats.

  3. Understanding: reframing automation and assurance

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Understanding should be made an explicit, assessable component of assurance cases for critical systems by drawing on epistemology and using structured argumentation to create artefacts like an Understanding Basis and ...

  4. Not All Anquan Is the Same: A Terminological Proposal for Chinese Computer Science and Engineering

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Proposes using 'anbao' for security and reserving 'anquan' for safety in Chinese technical writing to reduce conceptual overload in safety-security discussions.