Mapping the Boundaries of Safe AI

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new data-driven approach defines the operational limits for artificial intelligence systems crucial to safety-critical applications.

Researchers propose a certifiable method for defining Operational Design Domains (ODDs) using kernel-based representations and operational data.

Defining the operational boundaries for artificial intelligence is increasingly challenging as systems become more complex and data-driven, yet certification of safety-critical applications demands a precise understanding of these conditions. This paper, ‘Defining Operational Conditions for Safety-Critical AI-Based Systems from Data’, introduces a novel Safety-by-Design method to define the Operational Design Domain (ODD) a posteriori from existing data using a kernel-based representation. By demonstrating that this data-driven ODD can, in fact, equal the underlying hidden ODD of the data, this approach offers a deterministic and certifiable pathway for AI system validation. Will this method unlock the widespread deployment of data-driven AI in safety-critical domains currently reliant on expert-defined operational limits?

Breaking the Boundaries: Redefining Safe Operational Spaces

The proliferation of artificial intelligence into domains demanding utmost reliability – such as autonomous vehicles, medical diagnostics, and aviation – necessitates a paradigm shift in validation methodologies. No longer sufficient are traditional techniques designed for deterministic systems; these struggle to address the nuanced, unpredictable behavior of AI algorithms operating in real-world scenarios. Consequently, a robust and comprehensive approach to verifying the safety and dependability of these AI-based systems is crucial, requiring advanced testing, formal verification, and continuous monitoring to ensure acceptable performance across a wide range of operational conditions and to mitigate potential hazards arising from unforeseen circumstances. The stakes are particularly high given the potential for significant consequences should these systems fail in safety-critical applications, driving a growing need for stringent validation protocols and regulatory oversight.

Conventional safety paradigms, largely developed for systems with predictable behaviors, face significant hurdles when applied to modern artificial intelligence. These systems operate within environments characterized by immense complexity and constant variability – factors that traditional hazard analysis and risk assessment struggle to adequately encompass. Unlike engineered systems with clearly defined parameters, AI-based systems learn and adapt, meaning their responses aren’t always pre-determined or easily anticipated. This creates a challenge in identifying all potential failure modes and ensuring reliable performance across the full spectrum of real-world conditions. The inherent stochasticity of many AI algorithms, coupled with the unpredictable nature of sensor data and external influences, further complicates the process of guaranteeing safety through established methods, necessitating new approaches that account for dynamic and uncertain operational contexts.

The effective deployment of artificial intelligence increasingly hinges on accurately defining the Operational Design Domain (ODD) – the specific conditions under which a system is designed to function safely. However, current methodologies frequently prove inadequate in fully encompassing the breadth of potential real-world scenarios. This shortfall isn’t merely a matter of incomplete data; it stems from the inherent complexity of anticipating every variable within dynamic, unstructured environments. Traditional approaches, often reliant on predefined rules and limited testing, struggle to account for the ‘unknown unknowns’ – unforeseen combinations of circumstances that can push an AI system beyond its design limits. Consequently, a system deemed ‘safe’ within a restricted ODD may exhibit unpredictable – and potentially hazardous – behavior when exposed to conditions outside that carefully circumscribed space, highlighting the critical need for more robust and adaptable ODD definition techniques.

Data as the Blueprint: Constructing Operational Boundaries from Observation

Data-Driven Operational Design Domain (ODD) construction represents a shift from manually defined boundaries to automatically learned operational limits. These methods utilize observed system behavior – data collected from system operation – to directly infer the boundaries within which the system is designed to function. Unlike traditional ODD definition which relies on expert knowledge and potentially subjective assessments, Data-Driven ODD techniques employ algorithms to analyze operational data and identify the feasible region of operation. This approach allows for the discovery of complex, non-linear boundaries and facilitates adaptation to changing system characteristics or environmental conditions without requiring manual redesign of the ODD.

Kernel-Based Operational Design Domain (ODD) construction utilizes kernel functions to map observed system data into a higher-dimensional space, enabling the representation of non-linear operational boundaries. This approach differs from traditional convex hull methods by allowing for the definition of ODDs that are not strictly convex, thereby more accurately capturing complex system behaviors. Kernel functions, such as the Gaussian kernel, transform the input data, facilitating the identification of intricate relationships and improved generalization performance. The resulting ODD is defined by the support vectors identified during the kernel-based learning process, effectively refining the boundaries based on the observed data distribution and providing a more precise representation of safe operational limits.

Kernel-Based ODD construction relies on capturing intricate relationships within the system’s operational space, and validation demonstrates a strong correlation with established methods. Specifically, analysis reveals a correlation coefficient (RÂČ) exceeding 0.97 when comparing data-driven ODD boundaries to those derived from convex hull approximations. This high degree of correlation indicates the method accurately represents the operational space and provides a statistically reliable alternative to traditional ODD construction techniques, suggesting the data-driven approach effectively captures the essential boundaries of system behavior.

The Logic of Determinism: Guaranteeing Predictability in a Chaotic World

A Deterministic Operational Design Domain (ODD) is a fundamental requirement for systems necessitating certifiable safety, particularly in autonomous applications. This determinism is achieved by ensuring that, given an identical set of input conditions, the system will consistently produce the same output or response. This repeatability is crucial for rigorous testing, validation, and ultimately, safety certification, as it eliminates ambiguity and allows for predictable system behavior under defined circumstances. Without a deterministic ODD, it becomes exceptionally difficult to demonstrate that a system will operate safely across its entire operational envelope, hindering the ability to obtain necessary approvals for deployment.

The Kernel-Based Operational Design Domain (ODD) construction process enforces determinism through a formalized, repeatable methodology. This involves defining the ODD’s boundaries using kernel functions which map sensor data to affinity values, establishing a clear relationship between input and output. The process begins with a dataset of anchor points representing known operational conditions. These points are then processed by the kernel functions, and a Convex Hull is calculated to define the ODD’s operating space. By precisely defining these parameters and utilizing a consistent algorithm for ODD generation, the Kernel-Based approach ensures that identical inputs will always produce identical ODD outputs, a crucial requirement for safety-critical applications and certifiable systems.

Operational Design Domain (ODD) validation employs the Monte Carlo Method to statistically assess the boundaries established by kernel functions. This process refines affinity thresholds using concepts like the Convex Hull, ensuring accurate ODD definition. Evaluation using a dataset of 622,110 anchor points within the Vehicle Collision Avoidance System (VCAS) use case demonstrated a strong correlation between predicted and actual performance, achieving an RÂČ value of 0.99105 for Precision and 0.99979 for Recall. These metrics indicate a high degree of confidence in the statistical validity of the ODD and its ability to accurately represent the intended operational environment.

Beyond Compliance: The Practical Implications of Collision Avoidance

The Operational Design Domain (ODD) represents a foundational element for ensuring the safe functionality of autonomous systems, particularly those involved in critical applications like collision avoidance. Systems such as VCAS, a purposefully streamlined reimplementation of a collision avoidance system, rely heavily on a precisely defined ODD to establish the specific conditions under which it is designed to operate safely. This definition isn’t merely a list of environmental factors – it encompasses everything from permissible weather conditions and road types to expected traffic densities and lighting levels. Without a clearly delineated ODD, the system lacks the necessary constraints to guarantee predictable and reliable behavior, potentially leading to hazardous situations outside of its intended operational scope. Therefore, rigorous specification and continuous validation against the defined ODD are paramount to building trust and enabling safe deployment of these technologies.

A robust safety framework for autonomous systems relies on more than just initial design; it demands continuous operational validation. Runtime monitoring, when paired with a precisely defined and deterministic Operational Design Domain (ODD), establishes a system for persistent self-check. This approach doesn’t simply react to failures, but proactively verifies that the system remains within its known, safe operating parameters throughout its execution. By constantly assessing inputs and internal states against the ODD, the system can detect deviations – situations falling outside its designed capabilities – and trigger appropriate safety responses. This constant verification isn’t a post-hoc analysis, but an integral part of the system’s operation, ensuring that the vehicle, or other autonomous entity, consistently functions as intended and within established safety boundaries.

This rigorous methodology of data-driven, deterministic systems is poised to unlock the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence in fields where safety is paramount. Unlike traditional ‘black box’ AI, this approach prioritizes verifiable boundaries and continuous monitoring, ensuring predictable performance within a defined Operational Design Domain. This transparency isn’t merely a technical achievement; it directly addresses a critical hurdle in regulatory approval, offering a clear audit trail and demonstrably safe operation. Consequently, industries such as aerospace, automotive, and healthcare can move beyond theoretical applications and confidently deploy AI-powered systems, benefiting from enhanced efficiency and reliability while upholding the highest safety standards. The ability to certify and validate AI based on deterministic behavior, rather than probabilistic outcomes, represents a fundamental shift toward trustworthy and accountable artificial intelligence.

The pursuit of defining Operational Design Domains (ODD) through data, as detailed in this work, mirrors a fundamental tenet of reverse engineering: understanding boundaries through exhaustive testing. It’s not simply about knowing the system’s limits, but actively probing them to establish verifiable constraints. As Carl Friedrich Gauss observed, “If others would think as hard as I do, they would not have so many questions.” This sentiment perfectly encapsulates the approach outlined in the paper; instead of relying on potentially incomplete expert assumptions, the methodology rigorously defines safe operational spaces through data-driven analysis, transforming ambiguity into quantifiable certainty. Every exploit starts with a question, not with intent, and this research frames the essential questions needed to certify AI safety.

What’s Next?

The presented method offers a compelling, if unsettling, proposition: that safety-critical systems can be defined not by what humans think they understand about a domain, but by the data the system itself experiences. This isn’t simply automation of existing expertise; it’s a shift towards letting the machine articulate the boundaries of its own competence. The implications are significant, and slightly unnerving. Reality, after all, is open source – the question isn’t if it’s knowable, but whether the current methods of inquiry are sufficient.

Current limitations, predictably, center on the data itself. The fidelity of the kernel representation is wholly dependent on the quality and breadth of the operational data. Gaps in that data – the ‘unknown unknowns’ – remain a substantial challenge. Future work must address methods for actively probing these boundaries, perhaps through adversarial testing or synthetic data generation, to build more robust and certifiable ODDs. The kernel function, while offering deterministic boundaries, is still a simplification of a complex world. Exploring alternative representations, perhaps those inspired by category theory or information geometry, could yield even more nuanced and reliable definitions of operational limits.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t just to define the ODD, but to create systems that can dynamically adapt to changes within it. A truly intelligent system wouldn’t merely operate within defined boundaries, but would actively refine and expand them, learning the code as it runs. That, however, necessitates a fundamental rethinking of verification and validation – moving beyond static certification to continuous, real-time assessment of competence.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.22118.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-02-01 20:41