Using Neural Networks for Data Cleaning in Weather Datasets

In climate science, we often want to compare across different datasets. Difficulties can arise in doing this due to inevitable mismatches that arise between observational and reanalysis data, or even between different reanalyses. This misalignment can raise problems for any work that seeks to make inferences about one dataset from another. We considered tropical cyclone location as an example task with one dataset providing atmospheric conditions (ERA5) and another providing storm tracks (IBTrACS). We found that while the examples often aligned well, there were a considerable proportion (around 25%) which were not well aligned. We trained a neural network to map from the wind field to the storm location; in this setting misalignment in the datasets appears as "label noise" (i.e. the labelled storm location does not correspond to the underlying wind field). We found that this neural network trained only on the often noisy labels from IBTrACS had a denoising effect, and performed better than the IBTrACS labels themselves, as measured by human preferences. Remarkably, this even held true for training points, on which we might have expected the network to overfit to the IBTrACS predictions.

Imitating careful experts to avoid catastrophic events

RL is increasingly being used to control robotic systems that interact closely with humans. This interaction raises the problem of safe RL: how to ensure that a RL-controlled robotic system never, for instance, injures a human. This problem is especially challenging in rich, realistic settings where it is not even possible to clearly write down a reward function which incorporates these outcomes. In these circumstances, perhaps the only viable approach is based on IRL, which infers rewards from human demonstrations. However, IRL is massively underdetermined as many different rewards can lead to the same optimal policies; we show that this makes it difficult to distinguish catastrophic outcomes (such as injuring a human) from merely undesirable outcomes. Our key insight is that humans do display different behaviour when catastrophic outcomes are possible: they become much more careful. We incorporate carefulness signals into IRL, and find that they do indeed allow IRL to disambiguate undesirable from catastrophic outcomes, which is critical to ensuring safety in future real-world human-robot interactions.