Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2024.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Reliability Theory for AI Controlcited by 1
- 2026I'm Sorry Driver, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Appraising the Safety of LLMs within Automotive Contextscited by 0
- 2026Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AIcited by 0
- 2026From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026Epistemic Norms for AI Safety and Alignment Researchcited by 0
- 2026Reliability Theory for AI Control22 Sep 2026
- 2026Epistemic Norms for AI Safety and Alignment Research27 Jul 2026
- 2026Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AI15 Jul 2026
- 2026I'm Sorry Driver, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Appraising the Safety of LLMs within Automotive Contexts12 Jun 2026
- 2026From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AI28 Apr 2026