MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388469715 · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3327575

Identifying the Hazard Boundary of ML-Enabled Autonomous Systems Using Cooperative Coevolutionary Search

2023· article· en· W4388469715 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceBoundary (topology)HazardContext (archaeology)Component (thermodynamics)Genetic algorithmArtificial intelligenceMetaheuristicMachine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Machine Learning (ML)-enabled autonomous systems (MLASs), it is essential to identify the <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">hazard boundary</i> of ML Components (MLCs) in the MLAS under analysis. Given that such boundary captures the conditions in terms of MLC behavior and system context that can lead to hazards, it can then be used to, for example, build a safety monitor that can take any predefined fallback mechanisms at runtime when reaching the hazard boundary. However, determining such <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">hazard boundary</i> for an ML component is challenging. This is due to the problem space combining system contexts (i.e., scenarios) and MLC behaviors (i.e., inputs and outputs) being far too large for exhaustive exploration and even to handle using conventional metaheuristics, such as genetic algorithms. Additionally, the high computational cost of simulations required to determine any MLAS safety violations makes the problem even more challenging. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to consider a region in the problem space deterministically safe or unsafe due to the uncontrollable parameters in simulations and the non-linear behaviors of ML models (e.g., deep neural networks) in the MLAS under analysis. To address the challenges, we propose MLCSHE (ML Component Safety Hazard Envelope), a novel method based on a Cooperative Co-Evolutionary Algorithm (CCEA), which aims to tackle a high-dimensional problem by decomposing it into two lower-dimensional search subproblems. Moreover, we take a <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">probabilistic</i> view of safe and unsafe regions and define a novel fitness function to measure the distance from the probabilistic hazard boundary and thus drive the search effectively. We evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of MLCSHE on a complex Autonomous Vehicle (AV) case study. Our evaluation results show that MLCSHE is significantly more effective and efficient compared to a standard genetic algorithm and random search.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it