Beyond Semantic Accuracy: Consequence-Aware Evaluation for Safety-Critical Language Understanding

Air Traffic Control (ATC) is a safety-critical domain in which incorrect interpretation of instructions may lead to severe operational consequences. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong general performance, their reliability in operational ATC environments remains unclear. Existing evaluation approaches, largely based on aggregate metrics such as F1 or macro accuracy, treat all errors uniformly and fail to account for the asymmetric consequences of high-risk semantic mistakes (e.g., incorrect runway identifiers or movement constraints). To address this gap, we propose a safety-oriented, consequence-aware evaluation framework tailored to ATC operations. Our results reveal that while current LLMs achieve reasonable aggregate accuracy, their operational reliability is severely limited. Evaluated on clean transcripts, the peak Risk Score reaches only 0.69, with most models scoring below 0.6 despite high macro-F1 performance. Further analysis shows that errors concentrate in high-impact entities despite relatively stable action-type classification, indicating structural grounding deficiencies. These findings highlight the necessity of consequence-aware evaluation protocols for the responsible deployment of AI-assisted ATC systems.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in safety-critical, physics-governed environments requires more than accuracy-based metrics, because predictions that are numerically close to the ground truth can still violate operational constraints, combine fields in physically inconsistent ways, or fail to produce usable structured outputs. Existing evaluation protocols do not measure these failure modes reliably. We propose FLY-EVAL++, an evidence-driven evaluation protocol that combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints with fixed rubric-guided aggregation into interpretable multi-dimensional scores. We instantiate FLY-EVAL++ for Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction (FTAP) by extending the PilotBench setting with history-conditioned and multi-step prediction tasks. Across 66 LLMs, safety compliance is the most discriminative dimension of model behavior: models with comparable predictive performance differ by more than 28 points in safety score, and we observe recurrent failures including safety violations under physically plausible predictions and instability in multi-step rollouts. These results show that evaluation in safety-critical domains should measure constraint satisfaction and structured validity explicitly rather than rely on accuracy-centric reporting alone.

Safety benchmark scores provide incomplete evidence of deployment readiness: aligned language models often adhere to rigid rules even when a situational update flips which action is safe. We term this failure brittle safety. To diagnose it, we introduce context-flip evaluation, testing 12 models across a safety benchmark (PacifAIst) and two commonsense controls using paired variants where the nominally safe action produces harm. Three findings emerge. First, brittle safety is safety-specific: all 12 models exhibit a safety-commonsense gap (mean +17.4 pp). Baseline accuracy fails to predict brittleness: among models above 90% baseline accuracy, brittleness rates range from 13.7% to 90.0%. Second, failures stem from policy override rather than miscomprehension: despite acknowledging the context change in every case, models persist via three distinct mechanisms that vary by update type and model family. Third, on a hand-audited probe of catastrophic consequence-flip scenarios, standard action-level guardrails catch none, while a state-aware validator catches all without false alarms on correct interventions. This indicates that action-level content moderation is systematically blind to consequence-flips, motivating state-aware architectural alternatives. We release our protocol, perturbed benchmarks, and deployment probe.