-
When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
Authors:
Daniel Sikar,
Artur Garcez,
Tillman Weyde,
Robin Bloomfield,
Kaleem Peeroo
Abstract:
Ensuring the reliability and safety of automated decision-making is crucial. It is well-known that data distribution shifts in machine learning can produce unreliable outcomes. This paper proposes a new approach for measuring the reliability of predictions under distribution shifts. We analyze how the outputs of a trained neural network change using clustering to measure distances between outputs…
▽ More
Ensuring the reliability and safety of automated decision-making is crucial. It is well-known that data distribution shifts in machine learning can produce unreliable outcomes. This paper proposes a new approach for measuring the reliability of predictions under distribution shifts. We analyze how the outputs of a trained neural network change using clustering to measure distances between outputs and class centroids. We propose this distance as a metric to evaluate the confidence of predictions under distribution shifts. We assign each prediction to a cluster with centroid representing the mean softmax output for all correct predictions of a given class. We then define a safety threshold for a class as the smallest distance from an incorrect prediction to the given class centroid. We evaluate the approach on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets using a Convolutional Neural Network and a Vision Transformer, respectively. The results show that our approach is consistent across these data sets and network models, and indicate that the proposed metric can offer an efficient way of determining when automated predictions are acceptable and when they should be deferred to human operators given a distribution shift.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
The Misclassification Likelihood Matrix: Some Classes Are More Likely To Be Misclassified Than Others
Authors:
Daniel Sikar,
Artur Garcez,
Robin Bloomfield,
Tillman Weyde,
Kaleem Peeroo,
Naman Singh,
Maeve Hutchinson,
Mirela Reljan-Delaney
Abstract:
This study introduces the Misclassification Likelihood Matrix (MLM) as a novel tool for quantifying the reliability of neural network predictions under distribution shifts. The MLM is obtained by leveraging softmax outputs and clustering techniques to measure the distances between the predictions of a trained neural network and class centroids. By analyzing these distances, the MLM provides a comp…
▽ More
This study introduces the Misclassification Likelihood Matrix (MLM) as a novel tool for quantifying the reliability of neural network predictions under distribution shifts. The MLM is obtained by leveraging softmax outputs and clustering techniques to measure the distances between the predictions of a trained neural network and class centroids. By analyzing these distances, the MLM provides a comprehensive view of the model's misclassification tendencies, enabling decision-makers to identify the most common and critical sources of errors. The MLM allows for the prioritization of model improvements and the establishment of decision thresholds based on acceptable risk levels. The approach is evaluated on the MNIST dataset using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a perturbed version of the dataset to simulate distribution shifts. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the MLM in assessing the reliability of predictions and highlight its potential in enhancing the interpretability and risk mitigation capabilities of neural networks. The implications of this work extend beyond image classification, with ongoing applications in autonomous systems, such as self-driving cars, to improve the safety and reliability of decision-making in complex, real-world environments.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Defeaters and Eliminative Argumentation in Assurance 2.0
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
Kate Netkachova,
John Rushby
Abstract:
A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted.
A valid concern about this process is…
▽ More
A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted.
A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias. The best defense against this concern is vigorous and skeptical debate and discussion in the manner of a dialectic or Socratic dialog. There is merit in recording aspects of this discussion for the benefit of subsequent developers and assessors. Defeaters are a means doing this: they express doubts about aspects of the argument and can be developed into subcases that confirm or refute the doubts, and can record them as documentation to assist future consideration.
This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0 and its Clarissa/ASCE tool support. These mechanisms also support eliminative argumentation, which is a contrary approach to assurance, favored by some, that uses a negative argument to refute all reasons why the top claim could be false.
△ Less
Submitted 16 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Assessing Confidence with Assurance 2.0
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
John Rushby
Abstract:
An assurance case is intended to provide justifiable confidence in the truth of its top claim, which typically concerns safety or security. A natural question is then "how much" confidence does the case provide? We argue that confidence cannot be reduced to a single attribute or measurement. Instead, we suggest it should be based on attributes that draw on three different perspectives: positive, n…
▽ More
An assurance case is intended to provide justifiable confidence in the truth of its top claim, which typically concerns safety or security. A natural question is then "how much" confidence does the case provide? We argue that confidence cannot be reduced to a single attribute or measurement. Instead, we suggest it should be based on attributes that draw on three different perspectives: positive, negative, and residual doubts.
Positive Perspectives consider the extent to which the evidence and overall argument of the case combine to make a positive statement justifying belief in its claims. We set a high bar for justification, requiring it to be indefeasible. The primary positive measure for this is soundness, which interprets the argument as a logical proof. Confidence in evidence can be expressed probabilistically and we use confirmation measures to ensure that the "weight" of evidence crosses some threshold. In addition, probabilities can be aggregated from evidence through the steps of the argument using probability logics to yield what we call probabilistic valuations for the claims.
Negative Perspectives record doubts and challenges to the case, typically expressed as defeaters, and their exploration and resolution. Assurance developers must guard against confirmation bias and should vigorously explore potential defeaters as they develop the case, and should record them and their resolution to avoid rework and to aid reviewers.
Residual Doubts: the world is uncertain so not all potential defeaters can be resolved. We explore risks and may deem them acceptable or unavoidable. It is crucial however that these judgments are conscious ones and that they are recorded in the assurance case.
This report examines the perspectives in detail and indicates how Clarissa, our prototype toolset for Assurance 2.0, assists in their evaluation.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2024; v1 submitted 3 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Safety Case Templates for Autonomous Systems
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
Gareth Fletcher,
Heidy Khlaaf,
Luke Hinde,
Philippa Ryan
Abstract:
This report documents safety assurance argument templates to support the deployment and operation of autonomous systems that include machine learning (ML) components. The document presents example safety argument templates covering: the development of safety requirements, hazard analysis, a safety monitor architecture for an autonomous system including at least one ML element, a component with ML…
▽ More
This report documents safety assurance argument templates to support the deployment and operation of autonomous systems that include machine learning (ML) components. The document presents example safety argument templates covering: the development of safety requirements, hazard analysis, a safety monitor architecture for an autonomous system including at least one ML element, a component with ML and the adaptation and change of the system over time. The report also presents generic templates for argument defeaters and evidence confidence that can be used to strengthen, review, and adapt the templates as necessary. This report is made available to get feedback on the approach and on the templates. This work was sponsored by the UK Dstl under the R-cloud framework.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2021; v1 submitted 29 January, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
-
Assurance 2.0: A Manifesto
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
John Rushby
Abstract:
System assurance is confronted by significant challenges. Some of these are new, for example, autonomous systems with major functions driven by machine learning and AI, and ultra-rapid system development, while others are the familiar, persistent issues of the need for efficient, effective and timely assurance. Traditional assurance is seen as a brake on innovation and often costly and time consum…
▽ More
System assurance is confronted by significant challenges. Some of these are new, for example, autonomous systems with major functions driven by machine learning and AI, and ultra-rapid system development, while others are the familiar, persistent issues of the need for efficient, effective and timely assurance. Traditional assurance is seen as a brake on innovation and often costly and time consuming. We therefore propose a modernized framework, Assurance 2.0, as an enabler that supports innovation and continuous incremental assurance. Perhaps unexpectedly, it does so by making assurance more rigorous, with increased focus on the reasoning and evidence employed, and explicit identification of defeaters and counterevidence.
△ Less
Submitted 14 January, 2021; v1 submitted 22 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS -- a collection of Technical Notes Part 2
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
Gareth Fletcher,
Heidy Khlaaf,
Philippa Ryan,
Shuji Kinoshita,
Yoshiki Kinoshit,
Makoto Takeyama,
Yutaka Matsubara,
Peter Popov,
Kazuki Imai,
Yoshinori Tsutake
Abstract:
This report provides an introduction and overview of the Technical Topic Notes (TTNs) produced in the Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS (Tigars) project. These notes aim to support the development and evaluation of autonomous vehicles. Part 1 addresses: Assurance-overview and issues, Resilience and Safety Requirements, Open Systems Perspective and Formal…
▽ More
This report provides an introduction and overview of the Technical Topic Notes (TTNs) produced in the Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS (Tigars) project. These notes aim to support the development and evaluation of autonomous vehicles. Part 1 addresses: Assurance-overview and issues, Resilience and Safety Requirements, Open Systems Perspective and Formal Verification and Static Analysis of ML Systems. This report is Part 2 and discusses: Simulation and Dynamic Testing, Defence in Depth and Diversity, Security-Informed Safety Analysis, Standards and Guidelines.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS -- a collection of Technical Notes Part 1
Authors:
Robin Bloomfield,
Gareth Fletcher,
Heidy Khlaaf,
Philippa Ryan,
Shuji Kinoshita,
Yoshiki Kinoshit,
Makoto Takeyama,
Yutaka Matsubara,
Peter Popov,
Kazuki Imai,
Yoshinori Tsutake
Abstract:
This report provides an introduction and overview of the Technical Topic Notes (TTNs) produced in the Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS (Tigars) project. These notes aim to support the development and evaluation of autonomous vehicles. Part 1 addresses: Assurance-overview and issues, Resilience and Safety Requirements, Open Systems Perspective and Formal…
▽ More
This report provides an introduction and overview of the Technical Topic Notes (TTNs) produced in the Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS (Tigars) project. These notes aim to support the development and evaluation of autonomous vehicles. Part 1 addresses: Assurance-overview and issues, Resilience and Safety Requirements, Open Systems Perspective and Formal Verification and Static Analysis of ML Systems. Part 2: Simulation and Dynamic Testing, Defence in Depth and Diversity, Security-Informed Safety Analysis, Standards and Guidelines.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
