15.8AIOct 27, 2023
Fine-Tuning Language Models Using Formal Methods FeedbackYunhao Yang, Neel P. Bhatt, Tyler Ingebrand et al.
Although pre-trained language models encode generic knowledge beneficial for planning and control, they may fail to generate appropriate control policies for domain-specific tasks. Existing fine-tuning methods use human feedback to address this limitation, however, sourcing human feedback is labor intensive and costly. We present a fully automated approach to fine-tune pre-trained language models for applications in autonomous systems, bridging the gap between generic knowledge and domain-specific requirements while reducing cost. The method synthesizes automaton-based controllers from pre-trained models guided by natural language task descriptions. These controllers are verifiable against independently provided specifications within a world model, which can be abstract or obtained from a high-fidelity simulator. Controllers with high compliance with the desired specifications receive higher ranks, guiding the iterative fine-tuning process. We provide quantitative evidences, primarily in autonomous driving, to demonstrate the method's effectiveness across multiple tasks. The results indicate an improvement in percentage of specifications satisfied by the controller from 60% to 90%.
5.4AINov 2, 2023
Formal Methods for Autonomous SystemsTichakorn Wongpiromsarn, Mahsa Ghasemi, Murat Cubuktepe et al.
Formal methods refer to rigorous, mathematical approaches to system development and have played a key role in establishing the correctness of safety-critical systems. The main building blocks of formal methods are models and specifications, which are analogous to behaviors and requirements in system design and give us the means to verify and synthesize system behaviors with formal guarantees. This monograph provides a survey of the current state of the art on applications of formal methods in the autonomous systems domain. We consider correct-by-construction synthesis under various formulations, including closed systems, reactive, and probabilistic settings. Beyond synthesizing systems in known environments, we address the concept of uncertainty and bound the behavior of systems that employ learning using formal methods. Further, we examine the synthesis of systems with monitoring, a mitigation technique for ensuring that once a system deviates from expected behavior, it knows a way of returning to normalcy. We also show how to overcome some limitations of formal methods themselves with learning. We conclude with future directions for formal methods in reinforcement learning, uncertainty, privacy, explainability of formal methods, and regulation and certification.
9.6AIAug 16, 2024
Pessimistic Iterative Planning with RNNs for Robust POMDPsMaris F. L. Galesloot, Marnix Suilen, Thiago D. Simão et al.
Robust POMDPs extend classical POMDPs to incorporate model uncertainty using so-called uncertainty sets on the transition and observation functions, effectively defining ranges of probabilities. Policies for robust POMDPs must be (1) memory-based to account for partial observability and (2) robust against model uncertainty to account for the worst-case probability instances from the uncertainty sets. To compute such robust memory-based policies, we propose the pessimistic iterative planning (PIP) framework, which alternates between (1) selecting pessimistic POMDPs via worst-case probability instances from the uncertainty sets, and (2) computing finite-state controllers (FSCs) for these pessimistic POMDPs. Within PIP, we propose the rFSCNet algorithm, which optimizes a recurrent neural network to compute the FSCs. The empirical evaluation shows that rFSCNet can compute better-performing robust policies than several baselines and a state-of-the-art robust POMDP solver.