James Niehaus

Jonathan Diller, David Barnes, Rebekah Bogdanoff et al.

As autonomous systems grow more advanced, objective metrics to evaluate their ethical and legal compliance are critical for informing end users of their limitations and ensuring accountability of those who misuse them. Current ethical embodied AI frameworks remain mostly qualitative, focusing on system design (through safety guardrails or targeted red teaming), and the realized guardrails often directly disallow unsafe behavior without providing the user with an override or interpretable reason. Instead, there is a need for computable metrics through rigorous testing that allow a user to determine the applicability of the system to the task. To address this gap, we introduce the Reference Ethical Benchmark for Autonomy Readiness (REBAR), a quantitative test and evaluation framework for autonomous systems. REBAR maps operating metrics into a computable Autonomy Readiness Level (ARL) rubric that can quantify ethical performance. Key innovations of the framework include a neuro-symbolic Large Language Model (LLM) approach to calculate and explain the ethical difficulty of scenarios, LLM-driven at-scale generation of test instances, and a versatile, photorealistic simulation environment. By evaluating white-box autonomy solutions through this rigorous testing pipeline, REBAR delivers an objective and repeatable benchmark score, bridging the gap between abstract principles and verifiable, accountable autonomy.

Jeff Druce, James Niehaus, Vanessa Moody et al.

The advances in artificial intelligence enabled by deep learning architectures are undeniable. In several cases, deep neural network driven models have surpassed human level performance in benchmark autonomy tasks. The underlying policies for these agents, however, are not easily interpretable. In fact, given their underlying deep models, it is impossible to directly understand the mapping from observations to actions for any reasonably complex agent. Producing this supporting technology to "open the black box" of these AI systems, while not sacrificing performance, was the fundamental goal of the DARPA XAI program. In our journey through this program, we have several "big picture" takeaways: 1) Explanations need to be highly tailored to their scenario; 2) many seemingly high performing RL agents are extremely brittle and are not amendable to explanation; 3) causal models allow for rich explanations, but how to present them isn't always straightforward; and 4) human subjects conjure fantastically wrong mental models for AIs, and these models are often hard to break. This paper discusses the origins of these takeaways, provides amplifying information, and suggestions for future work.