Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Simulation-Based Counterfactual Causal Discovery on Real World Driver Behaviour

Published 6 Jun 2023 in cs.RO and cs.AI | (2306.03354v2)

Abstract: Being able to reason about how one's behaviour can affect the behaviour of others is a core skill required of intelligent driving agents. Despite this, the state of the art struggles to meet the need of agents to discover causal links between themselves and others. Observational approaches struggle because of the non-stationarity of causal links in dynamic environments, and the sparsity of causal interactions while requiring the approaches to work in an online fashion. Meanwhile interventional approaches are impractical as a vehicle cannot experiment with its actions on a public road. To counter the issue of non-stationarity we reformulate the problem in terms of extracted events, while the previously mentioned restriction upon interventions can be overcome with the use of counterfactual simulation. We present three variants of the proposed counterfactual causal discovery method and evaluate these against state of the art observational temporal causal discovery methods across 3396 causal scenes extracted from a real world driving dataset. We find that the proposed method significantly outperforms the state of the art on the proposed task quantitatively and can offer additional insights by comparing the outcome of an alternate series of decisions in a way that observational and interventional approaches cannot.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. R. Howard and L. Kunze, “Evaluating temporal observation-based causal discovery techniques applied to road driver behaviour,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, M. van der Shaar, D. Janzing, and C. Zhang, Eds.   Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2023.
  2. ——, “Bayesian networks: A model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 7th conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA, 1985, pp. 15–17.
  3. C. W. J. Granger, “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods,” Econometrica, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 424–438, 1969. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1912791
  4. P. Spirtes, C. Glymour, R. Scheines et al., “Causation, prediction, and search,” MIT Press Books, vol. 1, 2001.
  5. S. Shimizu, P. O. Hoyer, A. Hyvärinen, and A. Kerminen, “A linear non-gaussian acyclic model for causal discovery,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, no. 72, pp. 2003–2030, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v7/shimizu06a.html
  6. C. Glymour, K. Zhang, and P. Spirtes, “Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models,” Frontiers in Genetics, vol. 10, p. 524, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2019.00524
  7. M. Kocaoglu, K. Shanmugam, and E. Bareinboim, “Experimental design for learning causal graphs with latent variables,” in Proceedings of NeurIPS 2017, I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 30.   Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/291d43c696d8c3704cdbe0a72ade5f6c-Abstract.html
  8. C. K. Assaad, E. Devijver, and E. Gaussier, “Survey and evaluation of causal discovery methods for time series,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 73, pp. 767–819, 2022.
  9. J. Houston, G. Zuidhof, L. Bergamini, Y. Ye, A. Jain, S. Omari, V. Iglovikov, and P. Ondruska, “One thousand and one hours: Self-driving motion prediction dataset,” https://level-5.global/level5/data/, 2020.
  10. R. Krajewski, J. Bock, L. Kloeker, and L. Eckstein, “The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems,” in 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2018, pp. 2118–2125.
  11. S. Mueller, A. Li, and J. Pearl, “Causes of effects: Learning individual responses from population data,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
  12. A. Hannart, J. Pearl, F. E. L. Otto, P. Naveau, and M. Ghil, “Causal counterfactual theory for the attribution of weather and climate-related events,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 99 – 110, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/97/1/bams-d-14-00034.1.xml
  13. D. Gunning and D. Aha, “Darpa’s explainable artificial intelligence (xai) program,” AI Magazine, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 44–58, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2850
  14. T. Hellström, “The relevance of causation in robotics: A review, categorization, and analysis,” Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 238–255, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0017
  15. G. Istrate, “Models we can trust: Toward a systematic discipline of (agent-based) model interpretation and validation,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, ser. AAMAS ’21.   Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2021, p. 6–11.
  16. K. Valogianni and B. Padmanabhan, “Causal abms: Learning plausible causal models using agent-based modeling,” in Proceedings of The KDD’22 Workshop on Causal Discovery, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, T. D. Le, L. Liu, E. Kıcıman, S. Triantafyllou, and H. Liu, Eds., vol. 185.   PMLR, 15 Aug 2022, p. 3–29. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v185/valogianni22a.html
  17. D. McDuff, Y. Song, J. Lee, V. Vineet, S. Vemprala, N. A. Gyde, H. Salman, S. Ma, K. Sohn, and A. Kapoor, “Causalcity: Complex simulations with agency for causal discovery and reasoning,” in Proceedings of the First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, B. Schölkopf, C. Uhler, and K. Zhang, Eds., vol. 177.   PMLR, 11–13 Apr 2022, pp. 559–575. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v177/mcduff22a.html
  18. W. Ding, H. Lin, B. Li, and D. Zhao, “Causalaf: Causal autoregressive flow for safety-critical driving scenario generation,” in 6th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2022.
  19. P. de Haan, D. Jayaraman, and S. Levine, “Causal confusion in imitation learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 32.   Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/file/947018640bf36a2bb609d3557a285329-Paper.pdf
  20. M. R. Samsami, M. Bahari, S. Salehkaleybar, and A. Alahi, “Causal imitative model for autonomous driving,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03908
  21. J. Kim and J. Canny, “Interpretable learning for self-driving cars by visualizing causal attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Oct 2017.
  22. C. Li, S. H. Chan, and Y.-T. Chen, “Who make drivers stop? towards driver-centric risk assessment: Risk object identification via causal inference,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 10 711–10 718.
  23. R. Pamfil, N. Sriwattanaworachai, S. Desai, P. Pilgerstorfer, K. Georgatzis, P. Beaumont, and B. Aragam, “Dynotears: Structure learning from time-series data,” in Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, S. Chiappa and R. Calandra, Eds., vol. 108.   PMLR, 26–28 Aug 2020, pp. 1595–1605. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v108/pamfil20a.html
  24. J. Geweke, “Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 77, no. 378, pp. 304–313, 1982. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1982.10477803
  25. J. Peters, D. Janzing, and B. Schölkopf, “Causal inference on time series using restricted structural equation models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Q. Weinberger, Eds., vol. 26.   Curran Associates, Inc., 2013. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/hash/47d1e990583c9c67424d369f3414728e-Abstract.html
Citations (2)

Summary

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.