MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Trustworthy AI Solutions in Future Aircraft: The Case of Arc Fault Detection

2025· article· W4416925146 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemRobustness (evolution)Redundancy (engineering)Fault detection and isolationTrustworthinessArc-fault circuit interrupterCertificationSoftware deployment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aeronautical industry demands high redundancy and security from its embedded devices. The increasing electrification in the sector, due to the replacement of hydraulic and pneumatic systems by electrical ones, makes old problems more dangerous, such as arc faults. Detecting them is more difficult when they are in series with the loads and subjected to direct current and voltage. Due to their critical nature, the protection systems must be highly effective. Today there are no certification procedures for embedding artificial intelligence algorithms, therefore a methodology for robustness verification is presented, ensuring the stability of their response in presence of adversarial disturbances. Through the results obtained, this work demonstrates that arc fault recognition algorithms considering adversarial examples are better compared to those that do not foresee such situations. The final performance reaches 99% accuracy for the most robust trained models.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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