Programming Safety into Self-Driving Cars: Fault-Tolerant Planning, and "Undecidedness" in AI

As reported by Science Daily: For decades, researchers in artificial intelligence, or AI, worked on specialized problems, developing theoretical concepts and workable algorithms for various aspects of the field. Computer vision, planning and reasoning experts all struggled independently in areas that many thought would be easy to solve, but which proved incredibly difficult.

However, in recent years, as the individual aspects of artificial intelligence matured, researchers began bringing the pieces together, leading to amazing displays of high-level intelligence: from IBM's Watson to the recent poker playing champion to the ability of AI to recognize cats on the internet.

These advances were on display this week at the 29th conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) in Austin, Texas, where interdisciplinary and applied research were prevalent, according to Shlomo Zilberstein, the conference committee chair and co-author on three papers at the conference.

Zilberstein studies the way artificial agents plan their future actions, particularly when working semi-autonomously--that is to say in conjunction with people or other devices.

Examples of semi-autonomous systems include co-robots working with humans in manufacturing, search-and-rescue robots that can be managed by humans working remotely and "driverless" cars. It is the latter topic that has particularly piqued Zilberstein's interest in recent years.

The marketing campaigns of leading auto manufacturers have presented a vision of the future where the passenger (formerly known as the driver) can check his or her email, chat with friends or even sleep while shuttling between home and the office. Some prototype vehicles included seats that swivel back to create an interior living room, or as in the case of Google's driverless car, a design with no steering wheel or brakes.

Except in rare cases, it's not clear to Zilberstein that this vision for the vehicles of the near future is a realistic one.

"In many areas, there are lots of barriers to full autonomy," Zilberstein said. "These barriers are not only technological, but also relate to legal and ethical issues and economic concerns."

In his talk at the "Blue Sky" session at AAAI, Zilberstein argued that in many areas, including driving, we will go through a long period where humans act as co-pilots or supervisors, passing off responsibility to the vehicle when possible and taking the wheel when the driving gets tricky, before the technology reaches full autonomy (if it ever does).

In such a scenario, the car would need to communicate with drivers to alert them when they need to take over control. In cases where the driver is non-responsive, the car must be able to autonomously make the decision to safely move to the side of the road and stop.

"People are unpredictable. What happens if the person is not doing what they're asked or expected to do, and the car is moving at sixty miles per hour?" Zilberstein asked. "This requires 'fault-tolerant planning.' It's the kind of planning that can handle a certain number of deviations or errors by the person who is asked to execute the plan."

With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Zilberstein has been exploring these and other practical questions related to the possibility of artificial agents that act among us.

Zilberstein, a professor of computer science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, works with human studies experts from academia and industry to help uncover the subtle elements of human behavior that one would need to take into account when preparing a robot to work semi-autonomously. He then translates those ideas into computer programs that let a robot or autonomous vehicle plan its actions--and create a plan B in case of an emergency.

There are a lot of subtle cues that go into safe driving. Take for example a four-way stop. Officially, the first car to the crosswalk goes first, but in actuality, people watch each other to see if and when to make their move.

"There is a slight negotiation going on without talking," Zilberstein explained. "It's communicating by your action such as eye contact, the wave of a hand, or the slight revving of an engine."

In trials, autonomous vehicles often sit paralyzed at such stops, unable to safely read the cues of the other drivers on the road. This "undecidedness" is a big problem for robots. A recent paper by Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK showed how robots, when faced with a difficult decision, will often process for such a long period of time as to miss the opportunity to act. Zilberstein's systems are designed to remedy this problem.

"With some careful separation of objectives, planning algorithms could address one of the key problems of maintaining 'live state', even when goal reachability relies on timely human interventions," he concluded.

The ability to tailor one's trip based on human-centered factors--like how attentive the driver can be or the driver's desire to avoid highways--is another aspect of semi-autonomous driving that Zilberstein is exploring.

In a paper with Kyle Wray from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Abdel-Illah Mouaddib from the University of Caen in France, Zilberstein introduced a new model and planning algorithm that allows semi-autonomous systems to make sequential decisions in situations that involve multiple objectives--for example, balancing safety and speed.

Their experiment focused on a semi-autonomous driving scenario where the decision to transfer control depended on the driver's level of fatigue. They showed that using their new algorithm a vehicle was able to favor roads where the vehicle can drive autonomously when the driver is fatigued, thus maximizing driver safety.

"In real life, people often try to optimize several competing objectives," Zilberstein said. "This planning algorithm can do that very quickly when the objectives are prioritized. For example, the highest priority may be to minimize driving time and a lower priority objective may be to minimize driving effort. Ultimately, we want to learn how to balance such competing objectives for each driver based on observed driving patterns."

It's an exciting time for artificial intelligence. The fruits of many decades of labor are finally being deployed in real systems and machine learning is being adopted widely and for different purposes than anyone had ever realized.

"We are beginning to see these kinds of remarkable successes that integrate decades-long research efforts in a variety of AI topics," said Héctor Muñoz-Avila, program director in NSF's Robust Intelligence cluster.

Indeed, over many decades, NSF's Robust Intelligence program has supported foundational research in artificial intelligence that, according to Zilberstein, has given rise to the amazing smart systems that are beginning to transform our world. But the agency has also supported researchers like Zilberstein who ask tough questions about emerging technologies.

"When we talk about autonomy, there are legal issues, technological issues and a lot of open questions," he said. "Personally, I think that NSF has been able to identify these as important questions and has been willing to put money into them. And this gives the U.S. a big advantage."

Uber Will Add Panic Button And Location/Journey Sharing In India

As reported by TechCrunch: Late last year, Uber announced plans for tighter safety measures in India following the rape of a passenger using its service in December. Now it has confirmed that two major features — an in-app panic button and journey/location sharing — will roll out to users in India on February 11.

The company went public with the launch date after Times Of India reported that the Mumbai transportation department was considering a ban on its service over its apparent approach to safety. Authorities are reportedly “not happy with Uber representatives’ responses during various meetings held to consider measures for passengers’ safety.”

Uber cleared the air on its plans to settle “some misconceptions” around its safety policy — which already includes more stringent background checks and a dedicated emergency response team. That will be boosted when the in-app panic button, which alerts local police when triggered, and a ‘safety net’ feature, which goes beyond Uber’s existing ‘share my ETA’ feature to let customers share details of their location and trip with up to five other people, go live in India next week.

The company previously said that these features will be rolled out worldwide at a later date, but India is the first priority in response to heightened concerns about safety following the rape incident.

Times Of India also reported that Uber has irked Mumbai authorities with its reluctance to install physical panic buttons in its drivers’ cars, something that new regulations have made mandatory in the city. Notes from the transportation department reportedly read that Uber “appears [to] want to put the onus of passenger safety on a cab’s owner and driver.”

Uber argued, however, that requiring physical panic buttons would be confusing because many drivers use multiple taxi app services. Since each one button is connected to a single taxi app service, that would necessitate multiple physical panic buttons in many cars, it argued.

“In a situation of distress the rider would have to pick the correct operator’s panic button to be able to get help on time. [In a car that works with India’s four top taxi app services] that’s 25 percent chance of success; and a decision that has to be made and executed in a split-second, if at all,” Uber said in a blog post.

Uber did propose a single panic button — installed by the driver and connected directly to the local police — as a better option. However, it then hit out at officials in Mumbai, adding that “forward looking regulatory authorities in India are already embracing this position and requiring technology platforms to have in-app safety features.”

The Uber returned to the road in New Delhi last month, six weeks after it was banned following the rape. The U.S. company applied for a mandatory radio license and revealed that it has adopted a non-profit model in the city until it is granted.

Bellingcat Launches Crowdsourced Ukraine Conflict Vehicle Tracking Project

From Bellingcat: Over the past few months, the Bellingcat team has been working on something slightly different from our previously published work. Now, we’re pleased to launch a crowdsourced effort to track the movements of military vehicles both inside and in the vicinity of Ukraine, primarily to determine if equipment has been transferred across the border from Russia to Ukraine.

To kick-start the effort, we have used Daniel Romein’s original research of last summer’s military movements to build an initial data set for launch, supplemented with additional interesting sightings collected by the Bellingcat team through social media. The data is made available through Silk, a beautiful data publishing and visualization platform.

You can access the Bellingcat Ukraine conflict vehicle tracking Silk here: http://bellingcat-vehicles.silk.co/

Why are we doing this? We do not want to simply report a list of cases when we think Russian vehicles have crossed the border to Ukraine, but want to provide the active community of social media investigators a platform to do their own research, as well as allow the community to contribute to the data set with their findings through Checkdesk. The Bellingcat team will maintain the data in Silk, and continuously make updates based on the verified submissions. As we consider the current data set ‘Beta quality’, we also welcome corrections to the initial data set via Checkdesk, should you find any errors.

Our hope is to build a large data set that can be mined to make entirely new discoveries. Some sightings of vehicles may not be so interesting on their own, but in a sequence raise new questions. As an example, a group of vehicles was seen travelling towards Russia’s Donetsk on June 21st, and similar vehicles were seen travelling through Ukraine’s Krasnodon later on the same day. Could these be the same vehicles after crossing the border?
In Silk, there are three collections of data:

• Sightings, which provide links to whatever media is available of the event, as well as additional details like data, location, a breakdown of types of equipment seen. In some cases, a sighting can be elaborated down to the uniquely identifiable vehicles. Sightings can also be grouped, so if for instance the same convoy is seen in multiple YouTube videos, these sightings can be grouped together. Link to a filterable list of all sightings.
• Equipment Categories, which are basically ‘buckets’ for categorizing the various types of equipment seen in the video. The category list also doubles as a handy reference to different vehicle types. Link to equipment category list.
• Unique Units, listing individually identifiable units, e.g. based on the license plate or other identifiers. Link to list of uniquely identifiable units.

The data can be visualized and explored in many different ways, so we encourage you do dig in and experiment with e.g. the different mapping options the tool provides!

As for the ready made views, below is a screen shot of the filterable equipment sighting list. Through this view, it’s possible to for instance look up all Pantsir-S1 sightings in the data set, or all sightings from a given month.

Another powerful tool is the search. This is very useful for e.g. looking up if certain military license plates are recorded in the database.

Findings to date
So, what can be found in the data set already today? Let’s have a look.
Around Luhansk, there have been several sightings of Dozor-N armoured vehicles, which are unique to Russia.

East of Donetsk, Pantsir-S1 sightings were reported in late January. This is also a weapon system used only by Russia. Interestingly, there were also several reports through social media of Pantsir-S1 sightings near the Ukranian border not long before this.


Msta-S self-propelled howitzers were filmed travelling on trailers through Rostov in July. In early September, an Msta-S was filmed driving through the town of Novoazovsk, and the unit’s unique markings seem to match exactly to one of the units that were seen passing through Rostov. Again, seems that the units crossed the border from Russia to Ukraine.


Finally, a picture of a Kamaz truck’s trailer in Boguchar was noted on social media, as it was linked to transporting tanks to the Ukranian border. However, cross-referencing the license plate to other trailers in our data set reveals something very interesting: this same trailer was in June transporting the Buk TELAR unit which is linked with the downing of MH17.


So, starting with these kinds of findings, we can’t wait to see what the community can do with this data and platform.

Submitting data through Checkdesk
Checkdesk is a platform that allows users to collaborate on the verification of reports, videos, photographs, and other information. Bellingcat hopes that Checkdesk will be used to bring together a lot of the information already shared and discussed on Russian vehicles in Ukraine, and enable the information to be reviewed and verified openly. We also hope that by making the process as open as possible we encourage our readers to participate in the discovery and verification process, giving them the opportunity to learn about verification and giving those who already have experience verifying content chance to share their knowledge.

Using Checkdesk couldn’t be simpler. A Checkdesk story (example here) is made up of updates, and each update is generally based around verifying individual elements of a story, be it an image or a claim made about the story. Anyone can add verification footnotes to an update, and once “journalists” (site moderators) decide the update is verified or not they can update the status to False, Verified, Undetermined, In Progress, or Not Applicable (example here).

It’s also possible to embed updates into web pages with a simple script:
As part of the current project we ask users to submit all sightings and reports of vehicles in Ukraine to the following updates, and the Bellingcat team will then review and organise the submissions for verification and adding to the database.

• New sightings
• Geolocation updates
• Equipment identification reports
• Error reports (e.g. wrong images or descriptions in sightings)

The Bellingcat team also encourages the preservation of content, especially as material is frequently deleted on social media sites once its discovery has been made public. Videos can be downloaded by a variety of websites, and Archive.org allows many pages to archived.
The following are guides and other resources on verification:

Tools
Google Earth Pro – Now free.
Clip Converter – Video saving site.
Keepvid – Video saving site.
Tube Offline – Video saving site for videos from VK.com.
Archive.org – Site for archiving web pages.
VLC Media Player – A free and light weight media player with various useful tools and options.
Paint.Net – Free digital photo editing software.

Guides
A Beginner’s Guide to Geolocating Videos
Verification and Geolocation Tricks and Tips with Google Earth
Geolocation Techniques – Mapping Landmarks
Open Source Information in Conflict Zones
War and Pieces – Social Media Investigations
The Verification Handbook

The Dark Future of Transportation: "Beyond Traffic" a USDOT Report

As reported by The Verge: The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) just released "Beyond Traffic," a study best described as a dire warning about how the country's arterial lines will clog and implode over the next several decades. As far as USDOT secretary Anthony Foxx is concerned, pretty much everything is in bad shape and getting worse: roadways, railways, waterways, the whole nine yards.

The problems are endless: ancient infrastructure is crumbling without the money to repair or replace it. Renewable energy strategies aren't materializing quickly enough. Rapidly growing urban centers are buckling under the weight of the commuting residents that occupy them. And all the while, the specter of global warming threatens to quite literally sink everything.

In a perfect world, the DOT would be coming to the table with a slate of solutions — not problems — but it's not. Instead, it's calling Beyond Traffic "an invitation to a conversation" about how to fix things. "Everyone uses our transportation system, which means anyone can help build its future," a slide deck highlighting the study reads.

Here are some of the major takeaways.

We're basically doomed unless we radically change things

"America's transportation system is a fossil in 2045," reads the slide deck. That's not wrong: even today, American bridges are regularly cited as being structurally deficient with no replacements in sight. It warns about the rise of new urban centers — "Omaha is the new LA" in the DOT's dystopian vision of the future — and rail systems so overcrowded that trains never actually stop to pick anyone up. No one can get to work.

The USDOT seems to be really excited about millennials and ride-sharing

The study makes reference to several trends unique to younger people — a downturn in driving paired with a huge uptick in the acceptance of technology. "Data enables innovative transportation options, such as car-sharing, ride-sharing, and pop-up bus services, and more rapid delivery of goods," the presentation notes. (Notably, Ford announced at CES this year that it's testing practically all of these things.) This might ultimately be terrible news for car lovers, but great news for the environment, infrastructure budgeting, and just about everything else.

Self-driving cars are definitely happening, because the regulatory people are on board

It's widely understood that the biggest hurdle to getting self-driving cars on the roads over the next couple decades won't be a technological one — it's regulatory. Lawmaking is almost always a bureaucratic nightmare, with special interests pulling strings and naysayers gumming up the works. For companies like Google and major automakers pursuing their own self-driving projects, though, this is probably good news: Beyond Traffic makes reference to the advent of driverless tech. "Imagine eliminating 9 out of every 10 car crashes. That's the bright promise driverless technology holds over the next 30 years," the presentation reads. A three-decade time horizon probably isn't what Google has in mind, but at least they've got the Department of Transportation talking about it in a sharply positive light

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

As reported by Wired: After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.

SpaceX Targets Sunday Launch; Will Retry Booster Landing

As reported by USA Today: SpaceX is targeting a 6:10 p.m. ET launch on Sunday of the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) mission from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, NASA confirmed Friday.

The mission is a collaboration between NASA, the Air Force and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

After launch, SpaceX again will try to land the Falcon 9 rocket booster an ocean platform. The first try last month resulted in the rocket hitting the "autonomous spaceport drone ship" with a fiery crash that did not cause extensive damage.

Though it hasn't landed a booster successfully yet, SpaceX last week released a concept video showing all three boosters from a Falcon Heavy rocket, which has not yet launched, flying back to a landing pads at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

SpaceX last week also revealed a picture of the Dragon capsule it will use to test a key system needed for future human missions to the International Space Station, targeted for 2017.

U.S. Air Force Budget Sets Stage for GPS Satellite Competition

As reported by Reuters: The U.S. Air Force's fiscal 2016 budget plan earmarks $7.1 billion for space programs, including a 10th Global Positioning System III satellite by Lockheed Martin Corp, and sets the stage for future competition for such satellites.

Lockheed won the contract to build GPS-III satellites in 2008, beating out Boeing Co, which had built earlier GPS satellites. The program has since run into delays due to technical challenges with a key sensor built by Exelis Inc.

The Air Force had no immediate details on the potential competition, how many satellites it would include, or when the process would begin.

Lockheed said it would review the budget in the coming weeks to understand the specific impact to its business. "We are completely focused on the execution and performance on our existing contract," said spokesman Chip Eschenfelder.

Boeing had no specific comment on the prospect of a GPS competition, but said it remained focused on improving productivity and lowering the cost of weapons systems.

The GPS system provides worldwide, 24-hour position, navigation and timing information for military and civilian users. The Air Force plans to buy a total of 27 GPS III satellites.

The fiscal 2016 budget for the GPS program includes $673 million in research and development funding, and $265 million in procurement funding for a total of $938 million, down from $1.02 billion in fiscal 2015.

If approved by Congress, the 2016 budget request would pay for GPS III satellite 10, and continue work on a next-generation ground control system being built by Raytheon Co. The Raytheon program was restructured last year, doubling its cost.

The program is due to be reviewed by the Pentagon's chief arms buyer this month.

No comment was immediately available from Lockheed or Boeing about the potential competition.

The Air Force space budget also funds five launches under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, of which three would be set aside for competition, according to an Air Force spokeswoman.

The United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed and Boeing, is the only provider of launches under the EELV program at the moment, but the Air Force has said it expects to certify privately held Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, to compete for EELV contracts by mid-year.

The budget also begins funding for an effort aimed at ending U.S. reliance on a Russian-built engine now used to power the Atlas 5 rocket built by United Launch Alliance.