Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
166 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Sample-Efficient Safety Assurances using Conformal Prediction (2109.14082v5)

Published 28 Sep 2021 in cs.RO and cs.LG

Abstract: When deploying machine learning models in high-stakes robotics applications, the ability to detect unsafe situations is crucial. Early warning systems can provide alerts when an unsafe situation is imminent (in the absence of corrective action). To reliably improve safety, these warning systems should have a provable false negative rate; i.e. of the situations that are unsafe, fewer than $\epsilon$ will occur without an alert. In this work, we present a framework that combines a statistical inference technique known as conformal prediction with a simulator of robot/environment dynamics, in order to tune warning systems to provably achieve an $\epsilon$ false negative rate using as few as $1/\epsilon$ data points. We apply our framework to a driver warning system and a robotic grasping application, and empirically demonstrate guaranteed false negative rate while also observing low false detection (positive) rate.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. In: International Conference on Learning Representations.
  2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01609 .
  3. Annals of Statistics 51(2): 816–845. 10.1214/23-AOS2276.
  4. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
  5. Cai F and Koutsoukos X (2020) Real-time out-of-distribution detection in learning-enabled cyber-physical systems. In: International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems.
  6. Calafiore G and Campi M (2006) The scenario approach to robust control design. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51(5): 742–753. 10.1109/TAC.2006.875041.
  7. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04267 .
  8. In: Conference on Robot Learning.
  9. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 15(1): 172–188.
  10. Crestani D, Godary-Dejean K and Lapierre L (2015) Enhancing fault tolerance of autonomous mobile robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 68: 140–155.
  11. Ding SX (2013) Introduction. In: Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Techniques: Design Schemes, Algorithms and Tools. Springer London, pp. 3–11.
  12. In: Robotics: Science and Systems.
  13. Feldman S, Bates S and Romano Y (2021) Improving conditional coverage via orthogonal quantile regression. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  14. Foody GM (2009) Sample size determination for image classification accuracy assessment and comparison. International Journal of Remote Sensing 30(20): 5273–5291. 10.1080/01431160903130937.
  15. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology 7(2). 10.2202/1544-6115.1385.
  16. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  17. Gibbs I and Candès EJ (2021) Conformal inference for online prediction with arbitrary distribution shifts. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  18. In: Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference.
  19. Harirchi F and Ozay N (2015) Model invalidation for switched affine systems with applications to fault and anomaly detection. Analysis and Design of Hybrid Systems 48(27): 260–266.
  20. Harirchi F and Ozay N (2018) Guaranteed model-based fault detection in cyber-physical systems: A model invalidation approach. Automatica 93: 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2018.03.040.
  21. In: RoboCup 2016: Robot World Cup XX. Springer International Publishing, pp. 613–624.
  22. URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/lyft-motion-prediction-autonomous-vehicles.
  23. Khalastchi E and Kalech M (2018) On fault detection and diagnosis in robotic systems. ACM Computing Surveys 51(1): 1–24.
  24. In: Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics.
  25. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS).
  26. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.
  27. Science Robotics 4(26).
  28. Muradore R and Fiorini P (2011) A pls-based statistical approach for fault detection and isolation of robotic manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 59(8): 3167–3175.
  29. NeuroImage 56(2): 809–813. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.023.
  30. Patton R and Chen J (1997) Observer-based fault detection and isolation: Robustness and applications. Control Engineering Practice 5(5): 671–682.
  31. In: International Conference on Machine Learning.
  32. In: European Conference on Computer Vision.
  33. Shafer G and Vovk V (2008) A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9: 371–421.
  34. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  35. Vemuri AT, Polycarpou MM and Diakourtis SA (1998) Neural network based fault detection in robotic manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 14(2): 342–348.
  36. Visinsky ML, Cavallaro JR and Walker ID (1994a) Expert system framework for fault detection and fault tolerance in robotics. Computers & Electrical Engineering 20(5): 421–435.
  37. Visinsky ML, Cavallaro JR and Walker ID (1994b) Robotic fault detection and fault tolerance: A survey. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 46(2): 139–158.
  38. Visinsky ML, Cavallaro JR and Walker ID (1995) A dynamic fault tolerance framework for remote robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 11(4): 477–490.
  39. In: Gabbay DM, Hartmann S and Woods J (eds.) Inductive Logic, Handbook of the History of Logic, volume 10. North-Holland, pp. 651–706.
  40. Vovk V, Gammerman A and Shafer G (2005) Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer New York. 10.1007/b106715.
  41. URL http://alrw.net/old/04.pdf.
  42. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.03639 .
Citations (53)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.