Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Guidance on the Assurance of Machine Learning in Autonomous Systems (AMLAS)

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 2102.01564 v1 pith:M4FXWOW2 submitted 2021-02-02 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords safetysystemsamlasassuranceautonomouslearningmachinecase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Machine Learning (ML) is now used in a range of systems with results that are reported to exceed, under certain conditions, human performance. Many of these systems, in domains such as healthcare , automotive and manufacturing, exhibit high degrees of autonomy and are safety critical. Establishing justified confidence in ML forms a core part of the safety case for these systems. In this document we introduce a methodology for the Assurance of Machine Learning for use in Autonomous Systems (AMLAS). AMLAS comprises a set of safety case patterns and a process for (1) systematically integrating safety assurance into the development of ML components and (2) for generating the evidence base for explicitly justifying the acceptable safety of these components when integrated into autonomous system applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 47 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Safety Case Patterns for VLA-based driving systems: Insights from SimLingo

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    RAISE supplies reusable Reject-Instruction and Accept-Adequate-Instructions patterns plus an extended HARA that includes safe events, enabling structured safety cases for VLA driving systems, shown on SimLingo.

  2. Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Agentic AI cannot be adequately validated by component tests alone; trajectory-in-context validation is required, and current practice is mature only for behavioral evaluation.

  3. Robustness Requirement Coverage using a Situation Coverage Approach for Vision-based AI Systems

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A position paper integrating camera noise factor identification with situation coverage to express robustness requirements as performance requirements qualified by bounded operational context subsets (PODs).

  4. Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-layer systems framework and T0–T5 hierarchy for grading and maintaining bounded trustworthiness claims in embodied AI systems.

  5. Assuring the Safety of Reinforcement Learning Components: AMLAS-RL

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AMLAS-RL defines six stages for generating RL safety assurance arguments, demonstrated on a wheeled vehicle where verification ultimately showed the need to revisit earlier stages.

  6. Enhancing Uncertainty Quantification for Runtime Safety Assurance Using Causal Risk Analysis and Operational Design Domain

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bayesian network built from fault trees and ODD attributes computes a context-aware safety confidence for an automated valet parking object detector at runtime.

Pith tools