mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Dependable AI-Assisted Engineering: A Formal Framework for AI Participation and Assurance in Safety-Critical Workflows

arXiv 2610.04084 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative AI can produce engineering artefacts, but generation alone does not determine whether or how those artefacts should enter safety-critical workflows. This paper develops a formal framework for assigning AI participation and assurance at the level of individual workflow units. Each unit has a participation and assurance record covering its engineering requirement, an approved operational formalization where applicable, the applicable mechanism, fallback where applicable, evidence obligations and the applicable guarantee, plus a deployment-readiness status. The framework distinguishes deterministic verification, statistically calibrated admission, authorized human judgement supported by AI advice, authorized human adjudication of AI-produced artefacts, retained deterministic tool paths and explicit non-participation; these arrangements carry different kinds of guarantee rather than levels on a common scale. The framework also separates formalization fidelity from verifier soundness, provides a staged classification and readiness procedure, and derives conditions for comparing a gated AI-assisted unit with an incumbent process under recurring-population assumptions. We instantiate and apply the framework in an executed 17-unit wing-spar structural-analysis workflow combining deterministically gated AI-generated CAD, retained deterministic computation and human judgement. The AI-generated CAD program passed all 23 deterministic checks and was admitted at the first attempt. Favourable stress magnitudes did not suffice to pass the stress criteria where the predeclared mesh-convergence evidence was insufficient; those criteria were instead referred to engineering judgement. The case demonstrates selective AI participation and explicit evidence handling at unit level; no claim is made of workflow-level dependability, certification, structural safety or productivity.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

16 of 39 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  2. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
  3. 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 288
  4. 2021DeepCAD: A Deep Generative Network for Computer-Aided Design Modelscited by 271
  5. 2021Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Controlcited by 271
  6. 2024CAD-MLLM: Unifying Multimodality-Conditioned CAD Generation With MLLMcited by 81
  7. 2025Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversightcited by 58
  8. 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
  9. 2021Guidance on the Assurance of Machine Learning in Autonomous Systems (AMLAS)cited by 42
  10. 2021How to Certify Machine Learning Based Safety-critical Systems? A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 39
  11. 2021Taxonomy of Machine Learning Safety: A Survey and Primercited by 25
  12. 2025Large Language Models for Computer-Aided Design: A Surveycited by 18
4 more
  1. 2016Efficient Certified RAT Verificationcited by 13
  2. 2026A Structured Approach to Safety Case Construction for AI Systemscited by 6
  3. 2025Where AI Assurance Might Go Wrong: Initial lessons from engineering of critical systemscited by 4
  4. 2025Generative AI for CAD Automation: Leveraging Large Language Models for 3D Modellingcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.