From Hazard Identification to Controller Design: Proactive and LLM-Supported Safety Engineering for ML-Powered Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning (ML) components are increasingly integrated into software products, yet their complexity and inherent uncertainty often lead to unintended and hazardous consequences, both for individuals and society at large. Despite these risks, practitioners seldom adopt proactive approaches to anticipate and mitigate hazards before they occur. Traditional safety engineering approaches, such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), offer systematic frameworks for early risk identification but are rarely adopted. This position paper advocates for integrating hazard analysis into the development of any ML-powered software product and calls for greater support to make this process accessible to developers. By using large language models (LLMs) to partially automate a modified STPA process with human oversight at critical steps, we expect to address two key challenges: the heavy dependency on highly experienced safety engineering experts, and the time-consuming, labor-intensive nature of traditional hazard analysis, which often impedes its integration into real-world development workflows. We illustrate our approach with a running example, demonstrating that many seemingly unanticipated issues can, in fact, be anticipated.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2025.
Builds on
20 of 45 references.
References · 20
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 957
- 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 192
- 2020When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacycited by 181
- 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 142
- 2020Where Responsible AI meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for shifting Organizational Practicescited by 38
- 2020Trust in AutoML: Exploring Information Needs for Establishing Trust in Automated Machine Learning Systemscited by 36
- 2024Farsight: Fostering Responsible AI Awareness During AI Application Prototypingcited by 28
- 2022From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible MLcited by 26
- 2023AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harmscited by 26
- 2022A Hazard Analysis Framework for Code Synthesis Large Language Modelscited by 22
- 2022System Safety and Artificial Intelligencecited by 18
8 more
- 2024Co-designing an AI Impact Assessment Report Template with AI Practitioners and AI Compliance Expertscited by 10
- 2023Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Developmentcited by 9
- 2022Bias and unfairness in machine learning models: a systematic literature reviewcited by 7
- 2023Anticipating Impacts: Using Large-Scale Scenario Writing to Explore Diverse Implications of Generative AI in the News Environmentcited by 6
- 2024From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systemscited by 6
- 2022Exploring Opportunities in Usable Hazard Analysis Processes for AI Engineeringcited by 3
- 2017Using STPA in Compliance with ISO 26262 for Developing a Safe Architecture for Fully Automated Vehiclescited by 2
- 2022System Safety Engineering for Social and Ethical ML Risks: A Case Studycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 5.
7 papers.
- 2026Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agentscited by 34
- 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Promptscited by 32
- 2025An LLM-Integrated Framework for Completion, Management, and Tracing of STPAcited by 2
- 2026Don't Make Models Guess Security and Safety: Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026Is Vibe Coding the Future? An Empirical Assessment of LLM Generated Codes for Construction Safetycited by 0
- 2026Who Analyses the Analyser? Self-Validating LLM Hazard Analysis with Constitutional Meta-STPAcited by 0
- 2026From Safety Documentation to Safety Knowledge Support: An Evidence-Grounded LLM Framework for Medical Devicescited by 0
- 2026From Safety Documentation to Safety Knowledge Support: An Evidence-Grounded LLM Framework for Medical Devices12 Aug 2026
- 2026Who Analyses the Analyser? Self-Validating LLM Hazard Analysis with Constitutional Meta-STPA9 Jul 2026
- 2026Don't Make Models Guess Security and Safety: Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific AI Agents16 Apr 2026
- 2026Is Vibe Coding the Future? An Empirical Assessment of LLM Generated Codes for Construction Safety14 Apr 2026
- 2026Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agents12 Jan 2026
- 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Prompts19 May 2025
- 2025An LLM-Integrated Framework for Completion, Management, and Tracing of STPA15 Mar 2025