MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Secure AI-SDLC for Critical Infrastructure: Operationalizing the NIST AI RMF with Evidence-Driven Controls

2025· article· W7138133676 on OpenAlexaff
Shalini Sudarsan, Akshay Mittal, Akshay Sekar Chandrasekaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsKindercare Pediatrics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTOperationalizationKey (lock)Control (management)Scram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical infrastructure systems increasingly rely on artificial intelligence for decision-making, yet current development practices inadequately address security risks unique to AI systems. This paper presents Secure AI-SDLC, a comprehensive security framework that operationalizes the NIST AI Risk Management Framework with structured software development lifecycle controls for cyber-physical and safety-critical environments. Our approach maps AI-specific threats to actionable engineering controls and required evidence artifacts across five lifecycle phases: govern, design, build, test, and deploy/monitor, aligned with ISO/IEC 42001, IEC 62443, and NERC CIP. Validation through a 16-week deployment on an industrial monitoring pipeline in the energy sector demonstrated measurable improvements, including a 12.3% increase in adversarial robustness and a 40.2% reduction in mean time to detect anomalies. Mean time to recovery decreased from 4.2 hours to 1.8 hours. The proposed framework addresses the gap between high-level AI governance and practical implementation by providing concrete, auditable mechanisms for building and operating trustworthy AI systems in high-consequence environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207