Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces FLY-EVAL++, an evaluation protocol designed to assess large language models (LLMs) in safety-critical environments, specifically for Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction (FTAP). By integrating deterministic verification of compliance with operational constraints and safety standards, FLY-EVAL++ reveals significant discrepancies in safety performance among models that otherwise appear similar in predictive accuracy. The findings highlight that safety compliance is a critical dimension of model evaluation, with observed failures in safety adherence and stability during multi-step predictions, underscoring the inadequacy of traditional accuracy-focused metrics.
Safety compliance can vary by over 28 points among LLMs with similar predictive accuracy, revealing hidden risks in flight predictions.
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.
