CUBICS: Situation-aware performance estimation for safety-relevant ML components

Ensuring the reliability of black-box machine learning models in safety-critical space missions remains a significant challenge, particularly when ground-truth is unavailable for validation. Although machine learning models offer a powerful means to augment standard pipelines by extracting transmission spectra from complex exoplanetary light curves, their susceptibility to unmodelled instrument anomalies, stellar activity, and domain shifts introduces unquantified risks. This study evaluates a modular safety cage architecture that operates as a parallel monitoring layer to assess the validity of a prediction without modifying the underlying estimator. By monitoring different runtime indicators, including uncertainty quantification, out-of-domain detection, and influence functions, the framework constrains the model's operational domain to a verified region. A controlled evaluation is conducted under both in-domain and cross-domain conditions, using datasets from the 2019 and 2021 editions of the Ariel Data Challenges. The results reveal that model failure is multifaceted and that no single indicator captures all failure modes, demonstrating the need for indicator fusion. The application of safety-driven rejection strategies shows that a modest 20% reduction in data coverage results in error reductions between 45% and 65% across different domains and evaluation metrics. Using a formalised coverage-risk framework, a systematic analysis of indicator combinations is performed to identify configurations that maximise risk-ranking accuracy and optimise the trade-off between data coverage and scientific performance. Safety cages provide a transparent mechanism for detecting unreliable predictions and represent a critical step towards the safe deployment of data-driven models in scientific applications, such as astrophysics, where ground truth is seldom available.

We present a method for dynamic quantitative assurance that enhances static safety cases with continuous, runtime-driven confidence updates. The method quantifies and propagates confidence across the development lifecycle by integrating design-time evidence and windowed runtime Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) within a single Subjective Logic (SL)-based assurance case. At runtime, SPI evidence is continuously evaluated, and targeted claims are updated using a rule that increases confidence in the absence of violations and imposes prompt penalties when violations occur. This design prioritizes safety-relevant responsiveness over exact classical Bayesian posterior updates. We demonstrate the method using a simulation-based construction zone assist function, focusing on an ML-based construction cone detection component, and show how confidence evolves as SPI evidence is observed in operation.

Reliable uncertainty evaluation is essential for assessing the trustworthiness of machine learning (ML) predictions, particularly in safety-critical applications. This paper explores conceptual analogies between uncertainty evaluation in ML and measurement science, drawing on the evolution of metrology from error-based approaches to the framework established by the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). Particular attention is devoted to the distinction between process-level and result-level quality and to the limitations of the conventional classification of ML uncertainty into aleatoric and epistemic components. It is argued that this dichotomy, similarly to the traditional distinction between random and systematic measurement errors, is inherently model-dependent and provides an insufficient basis for a unified uncertainty evaluation framework. Further analogies between machine learning and measurement field of knowledge are identified concerning distribution shifts, anomalous operating conditions, and the validity of uncertainty evaluation. Building on the proposed considerations, the paper advocates a metrology-inspired approach based on the systematic identification, quantification, and propagation of uncertainty contributions. By extending the methodology already established in measurement science to ML, this approach could offer a potentially rigorous, consistent, and transferable framework for evaluating the trustworthiness of individual predictions.