Securing the Loop: A Risk Assessment Framework for Human-in-the-Loop Vulnerabilities Across SAE Levels of Autonomy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) systems, particularly in autonomous driving, represent a complex socio-technical partnership. While extensive research has focused on securing either the vehicle's AI or protecting the human from external cyber threats, the vulnerabilities emerging from the interaction between the human and the machine remain critically underexplored. This paper introduces a novel risk assessment framework HITL-IT which extends the STRIDE threat model by integrating a Human Factor Multiplier (HFM) to quantify the impact of cognitive vulnerabilities. Our framework identifies that at SAE Level 3, cognitive exploits such as trust manipulation and situation awareness degradation pose the greatest risk, with risk scores significantly exceeding purely technical threats. The paper also applies the HITL-IT model to real-world incidents and presents a comparative analysis with existing frameworks. Finally, we propose a forward-looking research agenda for securing socio-technical autonomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it