The rapid growth of chiplet-based artificial intelligence systems-on-chip (SoCs) has exposed a fundamental gap in semiconductor test methodology. Existing Known Good Die (KGD) screening guarantees pre-assembly functional correctness, yet it offers no probabilistic assurance of post-assembly reliability lifetime. To address this limitation, the present work formalizes the transition from KGD to Known Good Reliable Die (KGRD) screening as a constrained inference problem over incomplete pre-assembly observability. Building upon this formulation, four interlocking contributions are presented: (i) a Bayesian probabilistic risk model that maps pre-assembly telemetry to post-assembly failure likelihood with a quantified observability bias bound; (ii) a safety-gated decision architecture that provides a provable post-assembly failure probability guarantee; (iii) uncertainty-aware disposition boundaries derived from Bayes-optimal decision theory; and (iv) a constrained closed-loop feedback mechanism that delivers consistent model improvement without violating reliability constraints. A Monte Carlo simulation study on N = 4,000 synthetic dies verifies all four theoretical properties and confirms that the safety guarantee holds uniformly across the full range of tested gate threshold.
Reliability theory gives a mature language for layered systems, but its formal tools are not yet standard in frontier AI control. We apply them to Google DeepMind's defenses against rogue deployment. The same control stack can have cubic, quadratic, or linear rare-failure suppression depending on its failure domains. Birnbaum importance identifies which component improvements buy the most nominal reliability, while prevention changes the population on which recovery is demanded. These results give concrete guidance about what to separate, improve, measure, and test.
Embodied AI systems are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet ensuring their reliability remains a fundamental challenge. Drawing on discussions from the AAAI'26 Bridge Program on "Making Embodied AI Reliable with Testing and Formal Verification", this article argues that reliability in embodied AI is inherently a lifecycle assurance problem arising from uncertainty, human interaction, and emergent behaviors across tightly coupled system components. We identify three complementary directions toward reliable embodied AI: (1) trustworthy scenario-based testing supported by validated specifications and meaningful coverage metrics, (2) compositional verification enabled by structured symbolic representations of system behavior and environmental context, and (3) runtime assurance mechanisms capable of adapting to uncertainty and distribution shifts during deployment. Rather than treating these approaches independently, we advocate integrated assurance workflows that connect testing, verification, and runtime adaptation through shared neuro-symbolic representations and continuous feedback across the system lifecycle. Such integration provides a foundation for building trustworthy embodied AI systems that can operate safely and reliably in complex real-world environments.
Coordinating large population of flexible grid-edge devices can alleviate the need for time-consuming and capital-intensive network upgrades, and AI-based control methods such as multi-agent reinforcement learning or imitation learning are promising in their real-time decision scalability. However, system operators still need an independent and rigorous way to decide whether a given AI system is safe enough for deployment. This paper develops a finite-sample probabilistic safety certification framework for black-box AI decision models in closed-loop grid operation. The central idea is to reduce the complete input--AI--grid evaluator workflow to a binary unsafe outcome under an operator-defined safety specification, and then use exact binomial inference to certify the corresponding unsafe operation probability. Given a set of held-out calibration scenarios, the framework returns the tightest one-sided upper certificate and an accept/reject deployment criterion that controls the probability of false safety certification. Because the certification is for the calibration distribution that may deviate from the future operation, we further combine the nominal certificate with physically interpretable sample-space adversarial attacks, a concept widely used in AI to investigate the fragility of AI models. Case studies on grid-edge flexibility coordination with 1{,}000-agent AI models (independent parameters) verify the finite-sample safety guarantee and the value of integrating adversarial attacks into a rolling-window training-certification-deployment flow.