Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14641v1
• Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:29:42 GMT
• Title: Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness
• Authors: David Fernández Llorca, Ronan Hamon, Henrik Junklewitz, Kathrin Grosse, Lars Kunze, Patrick Seiniger, Robert Swaim, Nick Reed, Alexandre Alahi, Emilia Gómez, Ignacio Sánchez, Akos Kriston,
• Abstract summary: The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
• Score: 53.91018508439669
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), examining the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures, focusing on some of the essential requirements for trustworthy AI. Topics addressed include the role of AI at various operational layers of AVs, the implications of the EU's AI Act on AVs, and the need for new testing methodologies for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS). The study also provides a detailed analysis on the importance of cybersecurity audits, the need for explainability in AI decision-making processes and protocols for assessing the robustness and ethical behaviour of predictive systems in AVs. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology, highlighting the need for multidisciplinary expertise.

Related papers

• AI for All: Identifying AI incidents Related to Diversity and Inclusion [5.364403920214549]
  This study identifies and understanding D&I issues within AI systems through a manual analysis of AI incident databases. Almost half of the analyzed AI incidents are related to D&I, with a notable predominance of racial, gender, and age discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T08:54:56Z)
• Work-in-Progress: Crash Course: Can (Under Attack) Autonomous Driving Beat Human Drivers? [60.51287814584477]
  This paper evaluates the inherent risks in autonomous driving by examining the current landscape of AVs. We develop specific claims highlighting the delicate balance between the advantages of AVs and potential security challenges in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T09:42:21Z)
• AI Governance and Accountability: An Analysis of Anthropic's Claude [0.0]
  This paper examines the AI governance landscape, focusing on Anthropic's Claude, a foundational AI model. We analyze Claude through the lens of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and the EU AI Act, identifying potential threats and proposing mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T23:37:06Z)
• Explainable AI for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Driving: A Systematic Review [12.38351931894004]
  We present the first systematic literature review of explainable methods for safe and trustworthy autonomous driving. We identify five key contributions of XAI for safe and trustworthy AI in AD, which are interpretable design, interpretable surrogate models, interpretable monitoring, auxiliary explanations, and interpretable validation. We propose a modular framework called SafeX to integrate these contributions, enabling explanation delivery to users while simultaneously ensuring the safety of AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T09:08:44Z)
• Assessing AI Impact Assessments: A Classroom Study [14.768235460961876]
  Artificial Intelligence Impact Assessments ("AIIAs"), a family of tools that provide structured processes to imagine the possible impacts of a proposed AI system, have become an increasingly popular proposal to govern AI systems. Recent efforts from government or private-sector organizations have proposed many diverse instantiations of AIIAs, which take a variety of forms ranging from open-ended questionnaires to graded score-cards. We conduct a classroom study at a large research-intensive university (R1) in an elective course focused on the societal and ethical implications of AI. We find preliminary evidence that impact assessments can influence participants' perceptions of the potential
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T01:00:59Z)
• AI Maintenance: A Robustness Perspective [91.28724422822003]
  We introduce highlighted robustness challenges in the AI lifecycle and motivate AI maintenance by making analogies to car maintenance. We propose an AI model inspection framework to detect and mitigate robustness risks. Our proposal for AI maintenance facilitates robustness assessment, status tracking, risk scanning, model hardening, and regulation throughout the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-08T15:02:38Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)
• AAAI FSS-19: Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models and Data Proceedings [8.445274192818825]
  It is crucial for predictive models to be uncertainty-aware and yield trustworthy predictions. The focus of this symposium was on AI systems to improve data quality and technical robustness and safety. submissions from broadly defined areas also discussed approaches addressing requirements such as explainable models, human trust and ethical aspects of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T15:30:29Z)

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.