Skip to main content

How Should a Robot Assess Risk? Towards an Axiomatic Theory of Risk in Robotics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Robotics Research

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics ((SPAR,volume 10))

Abstract

Endowing robots with the capability of assessing risk and making risk-aware decisions is widely considered a key step toward ensuring safety for robots operating under uncertainty. But, how should a robot quantify risk? A natural and common approach is to consider the framework whereby costs are assigned to stochastic outcomes–an assignment captured by a cost random variable. Quantifying risk then corresponds to evaluating a risk metric, i.e., a mapping from the cost random variable to a real number. Yet, the question of what constitutes a “good” risk metric has received little attention within the robotics community. The goal of this paper is to explore and partially address this question by advocating axioms that risk metrics in robotics applications should satisfy in order to be employed as rational assessments of risk. We provide instantiations of the class of risk metrics that satisfy these axioms (referred to as distortion risk metrics) and also discuss pitfalls of commonly used risk metrics in robotics that do not satisfy these axioms. Our hope is that the ideas presented here will lead to a foundational framework for quantifying risk (and hence safety) in robotics applications.

Anirudha Majumdar—Work performed as a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D.: Concrete problems in AI safety (2016). arXiv:1606.06565

  2. Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., Heath, D.: Coherent measures of risk. Math. Financ. 9(3), 203–228 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Föllmer, H., Schied, A.: Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time. Walter de Gruyter (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. García, J., Fernández, F.: A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 16(1), 1437–1480 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Glover, K., Doyle, J.C.: Relations between H\(_\infty \) and risk sensitive controllers. Analysis and Optimization of Systems. Springer, Berlin (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kuindersma, S., Grupen, R., Barto, A.: Variable risk control via stochastic optimization. Int. J. Robot. Res. 32(7), 806–825 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., Rustichini, A., Taboga, M.: Portfolio selection with monotone mean-variance preferences. Math. Finan. 19(3), 487–521 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Majumdar, A., Pavone, M.: How should a robot assess risk? Towards an axiomatic theory of risk in robotics. Extended version of ISRR 2017 paper (2017). arXiv:1710.11040

  9. Majumdar, A., Singh, S., Mandlekar, A., Pavone, M.: Risk-sensitive inverse reinforcement learning via coherent risk models. Robotics Science and Systems (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mannor, S., Tsitsiklis, J.N.: Mean-variance optimization in Markov decision processes. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. B.C. on Banking Supervision: Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: A Revised Market Risk Framework. Bank for International Settlements (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S.: Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk 2, 21–41 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., Ruszczyński, A.: Lectures on stochastic programming: Modeling and theory. SIAM, 2nd edn. (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, S.: A class of distortion operators for pricing financial and insurance risks. J. Risk Insur. 67(1), 15–36 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Whittle, P.: Risk-sensitive linear/quadratic/gaussian control. Adv. Appl. Probab. 13(4), 764–777 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors were partially supported by the Office of Naval Research, Science of Autonomy Program, under Contract N00014-15-1-2673.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anirudha Majumdar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Majumdar, A., Pavone, M. (2020). How Should a Robot Assess Risk? Towards an Axiomatic Theory of Risk in Robotics. In: Amato, N., Hager, G., Thomas, S., Torres-Torriti, M. (eds) Robotics Research. Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28619-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics