Risk Perception in Complex Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Process Control and Autonomous Vehicle Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As intelligent systems increasingly operate in high-risk environments, understanding how they perceive and respond to hazards is critical for ensuring safety. Methods: In this study, we conduct a comparative analysis of 60 real-world accident reports, 30 from process control systems (PCSs) and 30 from autonomous vehicles (AVs), to examine differences in risk triggers, perception paradigms, and interaction failures between humans and artificial intelligence (AI). Results: Our findings reveal that PCS risks are predominantly internal to the system and detectable through deterministic, rule-based mechanisms, whereas AVs’ risks are externally driven and managed via probabilistic, multi-modal sensor fusion. More importantly, despite these architectural differences, both domains exhibit recurring human–AI interaction failures, including over-reliance on automation, mode confusion, and delayed intervention. In the case of PCSs, these failures are historically tied to human–automation interaction; this article extrapolates these patterns to anticipate potential human–AI interaction challenges as AI adaptation increases. Conclusions: This study highlights the need for a hybrid risk perception framework and improved human-centered design to enhance situational awareness and responsiveness. While AI has not yet been implemented in PCS incident studies, this work interprets human–automation failures in these cases as indicative of potential challenges in human–AI interaction that may arise in future AI-integrated process systems. Implications extend to developing safer intelligent systems across industrial and transportation sectors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".