Case study: verifying the safety of an autonomous racing car with a neural network controller
Abstract
This paper describes a verification case study on an autonomous racing car with a neural network (NN) controller. Although several verification approaches have been recently proposed, they have only been evaluated on low-dimensional systems or systems with constrained environments. To explore the limits of existing approaches, we present a challenging benchmark in which the NN takes raw LiDAR measurements as input and outputs steering for the car. We train a dozen NNs using reinforcement learning (RL) and show that the state of the art in verification can handle systems with around 40 LiDAR rays. Furthermore, we perform real experiments to investigate the benefits and limitations of verification with respect to the sim2real gap, i.e., the difference between a system's modeled and real performance. We identify cases, similar to the modeled environment, in which verification is strongly correlated with safe behavior. Finally, we illustrate LiDAR fault patterns that can be used to develop robust and safe RL algorithms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Manual world models have been created in settings where the operating environment is known or controllable, such as controllers in airplanes and self-driving cars, and are commonly used in scientific research including epidemic simulators and particle physics simulators.
“This has been done in settings where the operating environment is known or controllable, for e.g.controllers in airplanes (Garion et al., 2022;Fremont et al., 2020a) and self-driving cars (Ivanov et al., 2020;Fremont et al., 2020b).Such models are also commonly used in scientific research, including epidemic simulators (Broeck et al., 2011) and particle physics simulators (Baydin et al., 2019b).”
From Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Ivanov et al., 2020
Cites
Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying Deep Neural Networks
Katz, G., Barrett, C., Dill, D. L., Julian, K., & Kochenderfer, M. J. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_5 · Cited by 1,706 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems
Dalrymple, D. "., Skalse, J., Bengio, Y., Russell, S., Tegmark, M., Seshia, S., Omohundro, S., Szegedy, C., Goldhaber, B., Ammann, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06624 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ivanov, R., Carpenter, T. J., Weimer, J., Alur, R., Pappas, G. J., & Lee, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Pennsylvania
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-04-22
- Pages
- 1-7
- OpenAlex
- W3021958118
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11
- FWCI
- 11.17
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Hybrid Systems: computation and control (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-18-C-0090)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous racing car, neural network controller, verification, LiDAR, steering control, reinforcement learning, sim-to-real gap, safety verification, fault patterns, robustness, benchmark
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review