On Assessing The Safety of Reinforcement Learning algorithms Using Formal Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing adoption of Reinforcement Learning in safety-critical systems domains such as autonomous vehicles, health, and aviation raises the need for ensuring their safety. Existing safety mechanisms such as adversarial training, adversarial detection, and robust learning are not always adapted to all disturbances in which the agent is deployed. Those disturbances include moving adversaries whose behavior can be unpredictable by the agent, and as a matter of fact harmful to its learning. Ensuring the safety of critical systems also requires methods that give formal guarantees on the behaviour of the agent evolving in a perturbed environment. It is therefore necessary to propose new solutions adapted to the learning challenges faced by the agent. In this paper, first we generate adversarial agents that exhibit flaws in the agent's policy by presenting moving adversaries. Secondly, We use reward shaping and a modified Q-learning algorithm as defense mechanisms to improve the agent's policy when facing adversarial perturbations. Finally, probabilistic model checking is employed to evaluate the effectiveness of both mechanisms. We have conducted experiments on a discrete grid world with a single agent facing non-learning and learning adversaries. Our results show a diminution in the number of collisions between the agent and the adversaries. Probabilistic model checking provides lower and upper probabilistic bounds regarding the agent's safety in the adversarial environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it