In this paper, we explore methods for comparing agent behavior with human behavior to assist with validation. Our exploration begins by considering a simple method of behavior comparison. Motivated by shortcomings in this initial approach, we introduce behavior bounding, an automated model-based approach for comparing behavior that is inspired, in part, by Mitchells Version Spaces. We show that behavior bounding can be used to compactly represent both human and agent behavior. We argue that relatively low amounts of human effort are required to build, maintain, and use the data structures that underlie behavior bounding, and we provide a theoretical basis for these arguments using notions of PAC Learnability. Next, we show empirical results indicating that this approach is effective at identifying differences in certain types of behaviors and that it performs well when compared against our initial benchmark methods. Finally, we demonstrate that behavior bounding can produce information that allows developers to identify and fix problems in an agents behavior much more efficiently than standard debugging techniques.
Self-explaining roads: What does visual cognition tell us about designing safer roads?
