Bounding the Black Box: A Statistical Certification Framework for AI Risk Regulation

Artificial intelligence now decides who receives a loan, who is flagged for criminal investigation, and whether an autonomous vehicle brakes in time. Governments have responded: the EU AI Act, the NIST Risk Management Framework, and the Council of Europe Convention all demand that high-risk systems demonstrate safety before deployment. Yet beneath this regulatory consensus lies a critical vacuum: none specifies what ``acceptable risk'' means in quantitative terms, and none provides a technical method for verifying that a deployed system actually meets such a threshold. The regulatory architecture is in place; the verification instrument is not. This gap is not theoretical. As the EU AI Act moves into full enforcement, developers face mandatory conformity assessments without established methodologies for producing quantitative safety evidence - and the systems most in need of oversight are opaque statistical inference engines that resist white-box scrutiny. This paper provides the missing instrument. Drawing on the aviation certification paradigm, we propose a two-stage framework that transforms AI risk regulation into engineering practice. In Stage One, a competent authority formally fixes an acceptable failure probability $δ$ and an operational input domain $\varepsilon$ - a normative act with direct civil liability implications. In Stage Two, the RoMA and gRoMA statistical verification tools compute a definitive, auditable upper bound on the system's true failure rate, requiring no access to model internals and scaling to arbitrary architectures. We demonstrate how this certificate satisfies existing regulatory obligations, shifts accountability upstream to developers, and integrates with the legal frameworks that exist today.

AI-Assisted Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Evaluation Relative to Expert Judgment

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly introduced into systems engineering activities, particularly within requirements engineering, where quality assessment and validation remain heavily dependent on expert judgment. While recent AI tools demonstrate promising capabilities in analyzing and generating requirements, their role within formal systems engineering processes-and their alignment with established INCOSE criteria-remains insufficiently understood. This paper investigates the extent to which AI-based tools can support systems engineers in evaluating requirement quality, without replacing professional expertise. The research adopts a structured systems engineering methodology to compare AI-assisted requirement evaluation with human expert assessment. A controlled study was conducted in which system requirements were evaluated against established INCOSE ``good requirement'' criteria by both experienced systems engineers and an AI-based assessment tool. The evaluation focused on consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, examining not only accuracy but also the decision logic underlying each assessment. Results indicate that AI tools can provide consistent and rapid preliminary assessments, particularly for syntactic and structural quality attributes. However, expert judgment remains essential for contextual interpretation, ambiguity resolution, and trade-off reasoning. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for systems engineers, the findings support its role as a decision-support mechanism within the RE lifecycle. From a systems engineering perspective, this study contributes empirical evidence on how AI can be integrated into RE workflows while preserving traceability, accountability, and engineering consistency.

Towards Robust LLMs: an Adversarial Robustness Measurement Framework

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized artificial intelligence, yet these models remain vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, undermining their reliability in high-stakes applications. While adversarial robustness in vision-based neural networks has been extensively studied, LLM robustness remains under-explored. We adapt the Robustness Measurement and Assessment (RoMA) framework to quantify LLM resilience against adversarial inputs without requiring access to model parameters. By comparing RoMA's estimates to those of formal verification methods, we demonstrate its accuracy with minimal error margins while maintaining computational efficiency. Our empirical evaluation reveals that robustness varies significantly not only between different models but also across categories within the same task and between various types of perturbations. This non-uniformity underscores the need for task-specific robustness evaluations, enabling practitioners to compare and select models based on application-specific robustness requirements. Our work provides a systematic methodology to assess LLM robustness, advancing the development of more reliable language models for real-world deployment.

DEM: A Method for Certifying Deep Neural Network Classifier Outputs in Aerospace

Software development in the aerospace domain requires adhering to strict, high-quality standards. While there exist regulatory guidelines for commercial software in this domain (e.g., ARP-4754 and DO-178), these do not apply to software with deep neural network (DNN) components. Consequently, it is unclear how to allow aerospace systems to benefit from the deep learning revolution. Our work here seeks to address this challenge with a novel, output-centric approach for DNN certification. Our method employs statistical verification techniques, and has the key advantage of being able to flag specific inputs for which the DNN's output may be unreliable - so that they may be later inspected by a human expert. To achieve this, our method conducts a statistical analysis of the DNN's predictions for other, nearby inputs, in order to detect inconsistencies. This is in contrast to existing techniques, which typically attempt to certify the entire DNN, as opposed to individual outputs. Our method uses the DNN as a black-box, and makes no assumptions about its topology. We hope that this work constitutes another step towards integrating DNNs in safety-critical applications - especially in the aerospace domain, where high standards of quality and reliability are crucial.

gRoMA: a Tool for Measuring Deep Neural Networks Global Robustness

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are a state-of-the-art technology, capable of outstanding performance in many key tasks. However, it is challenging to integrate DNNs into safety-critical systems, such as those in the aerospace or automotive domains, due to the risk of adversarial inputs: slightly perturbed inputs that can cause the DNN to make grievous mistakes. Adversarial inputs have been shown to plague even modern DNNs; and so the risks they pose must be measured and mitigated to allow the safe deployment of DNNs in safety-critical systems. Here, we present a novel and scalable tool called gRoMA, which uses a statistical approach for formally measuring the global categorial robustness of a DNN - i.e., the probability of randomly encountering an adversarial input for a specific output category. Our tool operates on pre-trained, black-box classification DNNs. It randomly generates input samples that belong to an output category of interest, measures the DNN's susceptibility to adversarial inputs around these inputs, and then aggregates the results to infer the overall global robustness of the DNN up to some small bounded error. For evaluation purposes, we used gRoMA to measure the global robustness of the widespread Densenet DNN model over the CIFAR10 dataset and our results exposed significant gaps in the robustness of the different output categories. This experiment demonstrates the scalability of the new approach and showcases its potential for allowing DNNs to be deployed within critical systems of interest.

RoMA: a Method for Neural Network Robustness Measurement and Assessment

Neural network models have become the leading solution for a large variety of tasks, such as classification, language processing, protein folding, and others. However, their reliability is heavily plagued by adversarial inputs: small input perturbations that cause the model to produce erroneous outputs. Adversarial inputs can occur naturally when the system's environment behaves randomly, even in the absence of a malicious adversary, and are a severe cause for concern when attempting to deploy neural networks within critical systems. In this paper, we present a new statistical method, called Robustness Measurement and Assessment (RoMA), which can measure the expected robustness of a neural network model. Specifically, RoMA determines the probability that a random input perturbation might cause misclassification. The method allows us to provide formal guarantees regarding the expected frequency of errors that a trained model will encounter after deployment. Our approach can be applied to large-scale, black-box neural networks, which is a significant advantage compared to recently proposed verification methods. We apply our approach in two ways: comparing the robustness of different models, and measuring how a model's robustness is affected by the magnitude of input perturbation. One interesting insight obtained through this work is that, in a classification network, different output labels can exhibit very different robustness levels. We term this phenomenon categorial robustness. Our ability to perform risk and robustness assessments on a categorial basis opens the door to risk mitigation, which may prove to be a significant step towards neural network certification in safety-critical applications.