System Safety Monitoring of Learned Components Using Temporal Metric Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".