The missing link: Developing a safety case for perception components in\n automated driving
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safety assurance is a central concern for the development and societal\nacceptance of automated driving (AD) systems. Perception is a key aspect of AD\nthat relies heavily on Machine Learning (ML). Despite the known challenges with\nthe safety assurance of ML-based components, proposals have recently emerged\nfor unit-level safety cases addressing these components. Unfortunately, AD\nsafety cases express safety requirements at the system level and these efforts\nare missing the critical linking argument needed to integrate safety\nrequirements at the system level with component performance requirements at the\nunit level. In this paper, we propose the Integration Safety Case for\nPerception (ISCaP), a generic template for such a linking safety argument\nspecifically tailored for perception components. The template takes a deductive\nand formal approach to define strong traceability between levels. We\ndemonstrate the applicability of ISCaP with a detailed case study and discuss\nits use as a tool to support incremental development of perception components.\n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it