Integrating Testing and Operation-related Quantitative Evidences in Assurance Cases to Argue Safety of Data-Driven AI/ML Components

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05313v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:35:25 GMT
• Title: Integrating Testing and Operation-related Quantitative Evidences in Assurance Cases to Argue Safety of Data-Driven AI/ML Components
• Authors: Michael Kl\"as, Lisa J\"ockel, Rasmus Adler, Jan Reich
• Abstract summary: In the future, AI will increasingly find its way into systems that can potentially cause physical harm to humans. For such safety-critical systems, it must be demonstrated that their residual risk does not exceed what is acceptable. This paper proposes a more holistic argumentation structure for having achieved the target.
• Score: 2.064612766965483
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In the future, AI will increasingly find its way into systems that can potentially cause physical harm to humans. For such safety-critical systems, it must be demonstrated that their residual risk does not exceed what is acceptable. This includes, in particular, the AI components that are part of such systems' safety-related functions. Assurance cases are an intensively discussed option today for specifying a sound and comprehensive safety argument to demonstrate a system's safety. In previous work, it has been suggested to argue safety for AI components by structuring assurance cases based on two complementary risk acceptance criteria. One of these criteria is used to derive quantitative targets regarding the AI. The argumentation structures commonly proposed to show the achievement of such quantitative targets, however, focus on failure rates from statistical testing. Further important aspects are only considered in a qualitative manner -- if at all. In contrast, this paper proposes a more holistic argumentation structure for having achieved the target, namely a structure that integrates test results with runtime aspects and the impact of scope compliance and test data quality in a quantitative manner. We elaborate different argumentation options, present the underlying mathematical considerations, and discuss resulting implications for their practical application. Using the proposed argumentation structure might not only increase the integrity of assurance cases but may also allow claims on quantitative targets that would not be justifiable otherwise.

Related papers

• Safety case template for frontier AI: A cyber inability argument [2.2628353000034065]
  We propose a safety case template for offensive cyber capabilities. We identify a number of risk models, derive proxy tasks from the risk models, define evaluation settings for the proxy tasks, and connect those with evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T18:45:08Z)
• On the Robustness of Adversarial Training Against Uncertainty Attacks [9.180552487186485]
  In learning problems, the noise inherent to the task at hand hinders the possibility to infer without a certain degree of uncertainty. In this work, we reveal both empirically and theoretically that defending against adversarial examples, i.e., carefully perturbed samples that cause misclassification, guarantees a more secure, trustworthy uncertainty estimate. To support our claims, we evaluate multiple adversarial-robust models from the publicly available benchmark RobustBench on the CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T11:12:44Z)
• Automating Semantic Analysis of System Assurance Cases using Goal-directed ASP [1.2189422792863451]
  We present our approach to enhancing Assurance 2.0 with semantic rule-based analysis capabilities. We examine the unique semantic aspects of assurance cases, such as logical consistency, adequacy, indefeasibility, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T15:22:43Z)
• Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA [52.557503571760215]
  We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. We conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:23:43Z)
• EAIRiskBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [47.69642609574771]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction. Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results. However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges. This study introduces EAIRiskBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context. We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• A PRISMA-Driven Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on Assurance Case Patterns [7.930875992631788]
  Assurance cases can be used to prevent system failure. They are structured arguments that allow arguing and relaying various safety-critical systems' requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T05:00:49Z)
• Cross-Modality Safety Alignment [73.8765529028288]
  We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment. To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations. Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T16:14:15Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• Building Safe and Reliable AI systems for Safety Critical Tasks with Vision-Language Processing [1.2183405753834557]
  Current AI algorithms are unable to identify common causes for failure detection. Additional techniques are required to quantify the quality of predictions. This thesis will focus on vision-language data processing for tasks like classification, image captioning, and vision question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T18:05:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.