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
Lockheed Martin Successfully Transitions Long Range Discrimination Radar To The Missile Defense Agency
04/23/2024 | Lockheed MartinThe Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) at Clear Space Force Station in Clear, Alaska, completed DD250 final acceptance and was officially handed over to the Missile Defense Agency in preparation for an Operational Capability Baseline (OCB) decision and final transition to the Warfighter. In addition, prior to this transition, the system has started Space Domain Awareness data collects for the United States Space Force.
US Department of Defense Selects Intel Foundry for Phase Three of RAMP-C
04/23/2024 | IntelThe U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Intel Foundry Phase Three of its Rapid Assured Microelectronics Prototypes - Commercial (RAMP-C) program.
Real Time with... IPC APEX EXPO 2024: AI Implementation at Omron
04/18/2024 | Real Time with...IPC APEX EXPOEditor Nolan Johnson and Omron Product Manager Nick Fieldhouse discuss the company's focus on AI implementation to enhance customer experience and results. They address programming challenges and how AI can help customers achieve better outcomes with less experience. Omron's AI is compatible with existing systems, facilitating easy upgrades.
Cadence Unveils Palladium Z3 and Protium X3 Systems
04/18/2024 | Cadence Design SystemsThe Palladium Z3 and Protium X3 systems offer increased capacity, and scale from job sizes of 16 million gates up to 48 billion gates, so the largest SoCs can be tested as a whole rather than just partial models, ensuring proper functionality and performance.
Real Time with... IPC APEX EXPO 2024: MYCRONIC's Evolution and New Solutions
04/17/2024 | Real Time with...IPC APEX EXPOHenry Crandall interviews Kevin Clue, the vice president of global sales for MYCRONIC's High Flex division. They discuss the company's evolution, emphasizing its strong customer relationships and its role as a versatile, turnkey solution provider. Kevin unveils new solutions launched at IPC APEX EXPO, including an AI-integrated inspection system and the A40 pick-and-place platform. The conversation also touches on the increased use of AI and deep learning.