Identifying Artificial Intelligence 'Blind Spots'
January 25, 2019 | MITEstimated reading time: 6 minutes
A novel model developed by MIT and Microsoft researchers identifies instances in which autonomous systems have “learned” from training examples that don’t match what’s actually happening in the real world. Engineers could use this model to improve the safety of artificial intelligence systems, such as driverless vehicles and autonomous robots.
Image Caption: A model by MIT and Microsoft researchers identifies instances where autonomous cars have “learned” from training examples that don’t match what’s actually happening on the road, which can be used to identify which learned actions could cause real-world errors.
The AI systems powering driverless cars, for example, are trained extensively in virtual simulations to prepare the vehicle for nearly every event on the road. But sometimes the car makes an unexpected error in the real world because an event occurs that should, but doesn’t, alter the car’s behavior.
Consider a driverless car that wasn’t trained, and more importantly doesn’t have the sensors necessary, to differentiate between distinctly different scenarios, such as large, white cars and ambulances with red, flashing lights on the road. If the car is cruising down the highway and an ambulance flicks on its sirens, the car may not know to slow down and pull over, because it does not perceive the ambulance as different from a big white car.
In a pair of papers — presented at last year’s Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems conference and the upcoming Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence conference — the researchers describe a model that uses human input to uncover these training “blind spots.”
As with traditional approaches, the researchers put an AI system through simulation training. But then, a human closely monitors the system’s actions as it acts in the real world, providing feedback when the system made, or was about to make, any mistakes. The researchers then combine the training data with the human feedback data, and use machine-learning techniques to produce a model that pinpoints situations where the system most likely needs more information about how to act correctly.
The researchers validated their method using video games, with a simulated human correcting the learned path of an on-screen character. But the next step is to incorporate the model with traditional training and testing approaches for autonomous cars and robots with human feedback.
“The model helps autonomous systems better know what they don’t know,” says first author Ramya Ramakrishnan, a graduate student in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. “Many times, when these systems are deployed, their trained simulations don’t match the real-world setting [and] they could make mistakes, such as getting into accidents. The idea is to use humans to bridge that gap between simulation and the real world, in a safe way, so we can reduce some of those errors.”
Co-authors on both papers are: Julie Shah, an associate professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and head of the CSAIL’s Interactive Robotics Group; and Ece Kamar, Debadeepta Dey, and Eric Horvitz, all from Microsoft Research. Besmira Nushi is an additional co-author on the upcoming paper.
Taking Feedback
Some traditional training methods do provide human feedback during real-world test runs, but only to update the system’s actions. These approaches don’t identify blind spots, which could be useful for safer execution in the real world.
The researchers’ approach first puts an AI system through simulation training, where it will produce a “policy” that essentially maps every situation to the best action it can take in the simulations. Then, the system will be deployed in the real-world, where humans provide error signals in regions where the system’s actions are unacceptable.
Humans can provide data in multiple ways, such as through “demonstrations” and “corrections.” In demonstrations, the human acts in the real world, while the system observes and compares the human’s actions to what it would have done in that situation. For driverless cars, for instance, a human would manually control the car while the system produces a signal if its planned behavior deviates from the human’s behavior. Matches and mismatches with the human’s actions provide noisy indications of where the system might be acting acceptably or unacceptably.
Page 1 of 2
Suggested Items
Un-Jammable Quantum Tech Takes Flight to Boost UK’s Resilience Against Hostile Actors
05/13/2024 | BUSINESS WIREOSI Systems Receives Order for $9 Million to Provide Cargo and Vehicle Inspection Systems
05/13/2024 | BUSINESS WIREOSI Systems, Inc. announced that its Security division received an order from an international customer for approximately $9 million to provide the Company’s Eagle® M60 high energy mobile cargo and vehicle inspection systems including related service and support.
MBDA: Successful Qualification Firing of GRIFO System with CAMM-ER Missile
05/13/2024 | MBDAMBDA has recently performed a successful qualification firing of the GRIFO system, the Italian Army’s new generation air defence system, a member of the EMADS (Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions) family developed by MBDA, based on the CAMM-ER (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile – Extended Range) missile.
RTX Introduces the Collins Airport Surface Awareness System
05/10/2024 | RTXCollins Aerospace, an RTX business, introduces Collins’ Airport Surface Awareness System for real-time tracking, monitoring, and recording of both aircraft and ground support equipment at airports.
Airbus Finalises Acquisition of Aerovel and Its UAS Flexrotor
05/10/2024 | AirbusAirbus has finalised the acquisition of U.S.-based Aerovel and its unmanned aerial system (UAS), Flexrotor, in a move to strengthen its portfolio of tactical unmanned solutions.