FLY-EVAL++ Protocol for Flight Prediction
FLY-EVAL++: An Evidence-Driven Evaluation Protocol for Safety-Constrained Flight Prediction with Large Language Models
For aviation and AI safety professionals, this protocol addresses critical gaps in evaluating LLMs for physics-governed environments where accuracy alone doesn't ensure safety.
FLY-EVAL++ is an evidence-driven evaluation protocol for safety-constrained flight prediction with large language models. The protocol combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints. Tested across 66 LLMs, safety compliance proved the most discriminative dimension, with models differing by more than 28 points in safety score. The evaluation revealed recurrent failures including safety violations under physically plausible predictions and instability in multi-step rollouts.
FLY-EVAL++: An Evidence-Driven Evaluation Protocol for Safety-Constrained Flight Prediction with Large Language Models
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.