Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Uncovering Systemic and Environment Errors in Autonomous Systems Using Differential Testing

Yashwanthi Anand, Rahil P Mehta, Manish Motwani, Sandhya Saisubramanian

TL;DR

This work introduces AIProbe, a novel black-box differential testing framework to validate autonomous agents under varied and challenging environment configurations and demonstrates its broad applicability to both model-free and model-based agents operating in discrete and continuous domains.

Abstract

When an autonomous agent behaves undesirably, including failure to complete a task, it can be difficult to determine whether the behavior is due to a systemic agent error, such as flaws in the model or policy, or an environment error, where a task is inherently infeasible under a given environment configuration, even for an ideal agent. As agents and their environments grow more complex, identifying the error source becomes increasingly difficult but critical for reliable deployment. We introduce AIProbe, a novel black-box testing technique that applies differential testing to attribute undesirable agent behaviors either to agent deficiencies, such as modeling or training flaws, or due to environmental infeasibility. AIProbe first generates diverse environmental configurations and tasks for testing the agent, by modifying configurable parameters using Latin Hypercube sampling. It then solves each generated task using a search-based planner, independent of the agent. By comparing the agent's performance to the planner's solution, AIProbe identifies whether failures are due to errors in the agent's model or policy, or due to unsolvable task conditions. Our evaluation across multiple domains shows that AIProbe significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in detecting both total and unique errors, thereby contributing to a reliable deployment of autonomous agents.

Uncovering Systemic and Environment Errors in Autonomous Systems Using Differential Testing

TL;DR

This work introduces AIProbe, a novel black-box differential testing framework to validate autonomous agents under varied and challenging environment configurations and demonstrates its broad applicability to both model-free and model-based agents operating in discrete and continuous domains.

Abstract

When an autonomous agent behaves undesirably, including failure to complete a task, it can be difficult to determine whether the behavior is due to a systemic agent error, such as flaws in the model or policy, or an environment error, where a task is inherently infeasible under a given environment configuration, even for an ideal agent. As agents and their environments grow more complex, identifying the error source becomes increasingly difficult but critical for reliable deployment. We introduce AIProbe, a novel black-box testing technique that applies differential testing to attribute undesirable agent behaviors either to agent deficiencies, such as modeling or training flaws, or due to environmental infeasibility. AIProbe first generates diverse environmental configurations and tasks for testing the agent, by modifying configurable parameters using Latin Hypercube sampling. It then solves each generated task using a search-based planner, independent of the agent. By comparing the agent's performance to the planner's solution, AIProbe identifies whether failures are due to errors in the agent's model or policy, or due to unsolvable task conditions. Our evaluation across multiple domains shows that AIProbe significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in detecting both total and unique errors, thereby contributing to a reliable deployment of autonomous agents.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 35 sections, 6 figures, 4 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (6)

  • Figure 1: Overview of AIProbe
  • Figure 2: The XML template used to represent environment configurations. It includes the environment's, objects', and agents' attributes using the "Attribute" template shown in Figure \ref{['fig:attribute-template']}.
  • Figure 3: The XML template used to represent attributes of environment, objects, and agents along with their interdependent constraints.
  • Figure 4: Lava domain illustration. (a) Agent w/ an inaccurate model terminates by encountering a lava state while an agent w/ an accurate model stays in the same state stuck in a loop. (b) Agent w/ an inaccurate model fails to complete a task while the agent w/ an accurate model find a optimal path to the goal.
  • Figure 5: Generating diverse environment and task configurations uniformly at random using Latin Hypercube sampling.
  • ...and 1 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (1)

  • Definition 3