Mission-Aware Attestation Envelopes for Time-Critical Autonomous Action: A Hardware-in-the-Loop V2I Study

Key points

• Such a gate is normally treated as a predicate, yet the evidence behind it has an age, the decision that consumes it has a latency, and the physical system that waits for it has a deadline.1
• We formulate mission-aware attestation as a runtime assurance contract that holds only when integrity is valid, the evidence is fresh enough, and the decision completes inside a budget derived from the current physical state.1
• We evaluate it on a hardware-in-the-loop vehicle-to-infrastructure platform: a driving simulator supplies the physical state and the authorisation deadline, while a microcontroller on-board unit and a TPM-backed roadside unit running Linux integrity measurement supply the assurance evidence.1
• Moving the attestation interval across the range the verifier permits costs about as much as a fivefold scaling of the latency distribution, and the interval is directly configurable, which makes it the immediately actionable deployment parameter.1

Sources (1)

• [1]Mission-Aware Attestation Envelopes for Time-Critical Autonomous Action: A Hardware-in-the-Loop V2I Study
  arXiv (AI, ML, NLP, CV, robotics, multi-agent) · Oct 6, 05:55 PM

  An autonomous system that asks for a privileged physical action is usually gated on integrity evidence: a platform proves what it is running, and the request is granted or refused on that basis.

  Such a gate is normally treated as a predicate, yet the evidence behind it has an age, the decision that consumes it has a latency, and the physical system that waits for it has a deadline.

Extractive summary: sentences quoted from the sources.