MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406385999 · doi:10.1145/3712196

System Safety Monitoring of Learned Components Using Temporal Metric Forecasting

2025· article· en· W4406385999 on OpenAlexafffund
Sepehr Sharifi, Andrea Stocco, Lionel Briand

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanada Research ChairsScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsComputer scienceMetric (unit)Real-time computingSystems engineeringEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In learning-enabled autonomous systems, safety monitoring of learned components is crucial to ensure their outputs do not lead to system safety violations, given the operational context of the system. However, developing a safety monitor for practical deployment in real-world applications is challenging. This is due to limited access to internal workings and training data of the learned component. Furthermore, safety monitors should predict safety violations with low latency, while consuming a reasonable computation resource amount. To address the challenges, we propose a safety monitoring method based on probabilistic time series forecasting. Given the learned component outputs and an operational context, we empirically investigate different Deep Learning (DL)-based probabilistic forecasting to predict the objective measure capturing the satisfaction or violation of a safety requirement ( safety metric ). We empirically evaluate safety metric and violation prediction accuracy, and inference latency and resource usage of four state-of-the-art models, with varying horizons, using autonomous aviation and autonomous driving case studies. Our results suggest that probabilistic forecasting of safety metrics, given learned component outputs and scenarios, is effective for safety monitoring. Furthermore, for both case studies, the Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) was the most accurate model for predicting imminent safety violations, with acceptable latency and resource consumption.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207