A Review on Aerospace-AI, with Ethics and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of aerospace technology, coupled with the exponential growth in available data, has catalyzed the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) across the aerospace sector. This comprehensive review examines the state-of-the-art applications of AI, machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in aerospace. Our analysis reveals that ML algorithms demonstrate remarkable capabilities: Random forest (RF) algorithm achieves precision within 10 meters for trajectory prediction, while support vector machines (SVMs) algorithms show 99.89% accuracy in aircraft fault detection. Decision trees (DTs) algorithms excel in aircraft system diagnostics with adaptive learning capabilities. In the realm of deep learning, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) algorithms achieve 79% accuracy in satellite component detection and structural inspection, while recurrent neural networks (RNNs) algorithms and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks demonstrate superior performance in 4D trajectory prediction and engine health monitoring. GenAI, particularly through Generative adversarial networks (GANs), has revolutionized airfoil design optimization, achieving less than 1% error in profile fitting and 10% error in aerodynamic stealth characteristics. However, these algorithms face scalability challenges when processing large-scale datasets in real-time applications, particularly in mission-critical scenarios. Our research also identifies four ethical considerations, including bias prevention in automated systems, transparency in decision-making processes, privacy protection in data handling, and the implementation of important safety protocols. This study provides a foundation for understanding the current landscape of aerospace-AI integration while highlighting the importance of addressing ethical implications in future developments. The successful implementation of these technologies will require continuous innovation in validation methodologies, establish universal ethical considerations standard, and enhanced community engagement through citizen science initiatives to involve stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".