abstract: Thorough numerical simulations were run to test the performance of three processing methods of the data coming out from an electron multiplying charge coupled device (EMCCD), or low light level charge coupled device (L3CCD), operated at high gain, under real operating conditions. The effect of read-out noise and spurious charges is tested under various low flux conditions (0.001 event/pixel/frame $< f <$ 20 events/pixel/frame). Moreover, a method for finding the value of the gain applied by the EMCCD amplification register is also developed. It allows one to determine the gain value to an accuracy of a fraction of a percent from dark frames alone.
author: Olivier Daigle, Claude Carignan, Sébastien Blais-Ouellette Laboratoire d'Astrophysique Expérimentale, Département de physique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC, Canada, H3C 3J7;
Photon etc., 5155 Decelles Avenue, Pavillon J.A Bombardier, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3T 2B1.
bibliography: spie_l3_2006.bib
title: Faint flux performance of an EMCCD

# INTRODUCTION

The advent of electron multiplying charge coupled devices (EMCCD) allows one to apply a gain to the pixel's charge before it reaches the noisy output amplifier. Sub-electron read-out noise levels are thus reachable. However, this kind of signal amplification comes to a price: the stochastic multiplication process induces a noise on the gain level that renders impossible to determine the exact gain that has been applied to a pixel's charge. This statistical behaviour thus adds a noise factor that reaches a value of $2^{1/2}$ at high gains. The effect on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the system is the same as if the quantum efficiency (QE) of the CCD would be halved.

Some signal processing techniques may allow one to overcome this noise and recover the full silicon QE of the CCD. Simulations are run to test the behaviour of different processing techniques. The simulations and their results are presented in section .

Throughout the processing of the signal coming out of an EMCCD, the mean gain of the EM register is a key value that has to be determined with a high accuracy if one wants to acquire absolute photometric information with such a device. In section , an algorithm is developed so that the real gain of the EMCCD can be calculated through the processing of dark frames alone.

# SIMULATIONS

Thorough numerical simulations are run to properly understand the effect of the multiplication register on the pixel signal. This enables the optimization of the signal processing in order to recover the original pixel's value. Simulations concentrated mostly on low fluxes, 20 photons/pixel/frame being the highest flux simulated.

The simulation process is divided into four sections:

1.  The generation of the pixel's signal. This includes the photon's signal as well as the spurious charges generated during the vertical transfer;

2.  The journey of the pixel's charge into the EMCDD multiplication register;

3.  The simulation of the output amplifier's noise that is added to the multiplied pixel's charge;

4.  The digital processing of the output signal to try to recover the amount of input photons.

## Generating the pixel's signal

The generation of the pixel's signal involves generating a Poissonian flux of a given intensity. Then, if one wants to simulate the behaviour of the spurious charges, a Poissonian intensity of spurious charges is generated for every pixel. The simulations cover only the frame interval and not the time interval. Thus, these simulations do not take into account the dark signal, which have a time component. As for the spurious charges, only the clock induced charges (CIC) are simulated, which have a frame component.

## Simulating the multiplication register

The simulation of the EMCCD multiplication gain is done as follows. If one wants to simulate a multiplication register of $n$ elements having a mean gain of $g = \overline{G}$, a probability of multiplication of $p = g^{1/n}-1$ must be used for every element of the register. Then, the multiplication register is expanded as follows:

1.  The electrons contained into a pixel are loaded into the first stage of the multiplication register;

2.  Every electron is given the probability *p* of being multiplied;

3.  For every electron that is multiplied, another electron is added to the pool of electrons;

4.  The resulting electrons are loaded into the next stage of the multiplication register and the algorithm loops to step 2 until all the elements of the multiplication were passed through;

5.  At the end, the amount of electrons corresponds to the output value of the multiplication register.

The algorithm have been cross-checked with the theoretical output value of the multiplication register of an EMCCD, which is $$p(x,n,g) = \dfrac{x^{n-1}e^{-x/g}}{g^n(n-1)!},$$ where $x$ and $n$ are respectively the output and input values and $g$ is the mean gain. The results are shown in figure . One could argue that there is no need of generating simulated output values for simulating the real behaviour of an EMCCD. However, this approximation is not valid for large $n$, as explained in \[\]. Thus, one would prefer to do the full simulations in order not to be affected by the approximation.

## Generating the read-out noise

The simulation of the output amplifier's noise is just a matter of adding a noise with a normal distribution, that has a standard deviation value of the actual read-out noise, to the output value of the multiplication register. This value is considered as the one being read by the analog to digital converter. This value is then handed over to the digital processing routines.

## Processing the digitalized signal

Various output processing strategies are tested. First, for low fluxes, the simulations focus on the performance of the single threshold method (photon counting: PC), where the pixels are considered as being binary: the output is interpreted as being the result of one input photon or none. This method is extensively described in \[\]. Throughout the simulations, a cut-off level of 5.5$\sigma$ above the read-out noise is used.

Then, for higher fluxes, the behaviour of the Poisson probability (PP) thresholding scheme described in \[\] is tested. This processing strategy was developed to minimize the noise factor of the EMCCD induced by the multiplication register. The simulations allow one to test this affirmation. This multi-threshold scheme uses different threshold boundaries steps. These values are recopied in table for convenience (taken from table 1 of \[\]).

| Threshold | Boundary | Threshold | Boundary |
|:---------:|:--------:|:---------:|:--------:|
|     1     |   0.71   |     7     |   6.97   |
|     2     |   1.89   |     8     |   7.98   |
|     3     |   2.93   |     9     |   8.98   |
|     4     |   3.95   |    10     |   9.98   |
|     5     |   4.96   |    11     |   11.0   |
|     6     |   5.97   | $n\ge11$  |   $n$    |

Threshold boundaries in units of mean gain, for the PP thresholding strategy.

Finally, a scheme where the amount of photons is simply taken as being the output value divided by the mean gain is tested. This is often referred to as the *analogic* mode.

## Optimization

The simulation of the multiplication register being the most CPU demanding task (especially at high gain), a pool of output values of the multiplication register were pre-generated for many input pixel's values, for different mean gains. That is, a million output values were generated for an input of 1 electron and 10000 output values for an input of 100 electrons, with every input values in between. These output values were then stored into a file. Later, when the output value of the multiplication register is needed for a given input value, (between 0 and 100 electrons), it is just a matter of randomly picking a value that was already computed. This proved to substantially speedup the simulations. The amount of pre-generated output values was high enough not to affect the simulation results. No more than half of the pre-generated output values were used for every simulation.

# Simulation results

The simulations were done using different parameters for the read-out noise and the spurious charges. The simulations are run with these values:

1.  Read-out noise 0 electron, spurious charges 0 electron/pixel/frame. This first simulation allows one to see the effect of the electron multiplication process and the processing alone. It is a good indicator as which of the processing methods are best suited for a given flux;

2.  Read-out noise 50 electrons, spurious charges 0 electron/pixel/frame. This second simulation allows one to check how the thresholding of the read-out noise performs;

3.  Read-out noise 50 electrons, spurious charges 0.06 electron/pixel/frame. This third simulation is run to simulate the real behaviour of an EMCCD, knowing that the spurious charges will be an important source of noise.

In order to analyse the simulations, the effective noise factor (ENF) induced by the different digital processings is considered. The ENF is simply defined as $$ENF = \dfrac{\sigma_{out}}{\sigma_{in}},$$ where $\sigma_{out}$ and $\sigma_{in}$ are the standard deviations of the output signal and input signal, respectively. The input signal is always considered as being the photon flux, so it always has a standard deviation of $\sqrt{f}$, where $f$ is the mean flux in photon/pixel/frame.

Next, the *misfit*, the mean error that a processing method induces, is computed. It is defined as $$M = \dfrac{\sum_i{\left( n_i - y_i \right)^2}}{\sum_i{n_i}},$$ where $n_i$ is the signal input (Poissonian photons) and $y_i$ is the photon count as determined by the processing method.

Finally, the behaviour of the SNR for the different processing methods is studied. The SNR of the simulations is defined as being $$SNR = \dfrac{\left<n\right>}{\sqrt{\left<n\right> + \left<\left(n - y\right)^2\right>}}.$$ In this case, the value of $\left<n\right>$ represents the shot noise and the value of $\left<\left(n - y\right)^2\right>$ represents all the other sources of noise, including the spurious charges and read-out noise. For the thresholding (PC, PP) strategies, this SNR equation is valid only when the gain has a value at least 10 times the read-out noise. The SNR is compared to a perfect photon counting system, where the SNR is expressed as $$SNR = \dfrac{\left<n\right>}{\sqrt{\left<n\right>}}.$$

As these simulations aimed at characterizing the different processing strategies between them, they do not take into account the quantum efficiency of the CCD.

## Effects of the multiplication process

Figure and the left panel of figures and show the effect of the different processing methods on the output signal, for a mean gain of 5000. These simulations include neither the read-out noise, nor the generation of spurious charges. The PC processing allows one to get rid of the noise factor induced by the multiplication process at the price of losing events at high fluxes. At low fluxes, this processing induces no error in the output photon count.

The analogic processing behaves as expected: the noise factor of the multiplication process, at high gains, is $\sqrt{2}$.

The PP processing does not produce the expected effect of reducing the noise factor. For fluxes where the photon count per pixel per frame is dominated by single or no event, the ENF is higher than for the pure analogic processing. It is only at a flux between 1 and 10 photons/pixel/frame that there is a slight advantage in using this processing scheme. At any other fluxes, the ENF of the analogic processing is equal or lower.

Regarding the misfit, the curve of the PP thresholding follows the same trend as for the ENF. Thus, the mean counting error of the PP strategy will be lower than the one of the analogic processing for fluxes between 1 and 10 photons/pixel/frame.

Also, figure shows the effect of using a wrong value for the gain. An error of 10% on the gain value will induce an error of the same magnitude on the fraction of counted photons for the PP and analogic strategies. The misfit will be affected by twice that error. The PC strategy is not affected by the error on the gain as it does not use this value in its algorithm.

## Effect of the read-out noise

The effect of the read-out noise, at high gains, is mostly to confuse the thresholding strategies by inducing false events at low fluxes. Thus, a minimum detection threshold must be set to prevent false events from dominating the output. However, since this threshold will induce the loss of the events that would have a low output value, it is important not to set it too high. It was determined in \[\] that 5.5$\sigma$ was the value that had the less impact on the SNR at faint fluxes, but a lower value could be used at high fluxes to get a very slight gain in SNR. For the simulations, since a read-out noise of 50 electrons is used, the threshold used is set to 275 electrons (5.5$\sigma$). In analogic mode, regardless of the flux or the gain, no thresholding is used as the read-out noise averages to zero. These effects are shown in the right panels of figures and .

## Effect of the spurious charges

It is important to add the generation of the spurious charges (or CIC) to properly simulate the behaviour of the SNR of an EMCCD. Most of the spurious charges are generated during the vertical shifting of the charges. The amount of spurious charges generated is also dependant of the operating mode of the CCD (inverted, non-inverted). \[\] and \[\] explain how to choose the best operating mode of the EMCCD regarding the spurious charge generation. However, at low frame rate, it is best to operate the EMCCD in inverted mode, so that the dark noise is diminished.

The simulation results shown in figure show that by including the CIC and the read-out noise, there is really little difference between the SNR of the analogic processing and the PP thresholding. The highest performance is obtained in photon counting, as this mode does not suffer of the noise factor. Even with a spurious charge rate of 0.06 event/pixel/frame, at a flux of 0.2 photon/pixel/frame the SNR of the EMCCD comes very near the theoretical limit imposed by the shot noise.

The right panel of figure shows that the value of the SNR of the analogic processing is well explained by this equation $$SNR = \dfrac{S}{\sqrt{F^{2}S + F^{2}C + \dfrac{\sigma^2}{G^2}}},$$ where $S$ is the mean flux, $F$ is the noise factor, $C$ is the amplitude of the spurious charge generation, $\sigma$ is the read-out noise and $G$ is the mean gain. For the PC processing, the SNR is expressed as being $$SNR = \dfrac{S}{\sqrt{\dfrac{S^2+C^2}{1-e^{S+C}}}}.$$ This last equation reflects the effect on the SNR of counting only one event/pixel/frame in the approximation where the effective read-out noise is $\ll$`<!-- -->`{=html}1 and the threshold causes a negligible loss of events.

# Data from an EMCCD

When it comes to the processing of real data coming out of an EMCCD, a parameter that is taken for granted in the simulations, the mean gain, is not readily available. The mean multiplication gain is in fact dependant of numerous factors, namely the high voltage clock amplitude, the temperature and the age of the EMCCD. The last factor will not vary rapidly. It is only over time that the amplitude of the high voltage phase will have to be slightly increased to maintain the same gain. However, the two other factors will have an impact that may change from frame to frame, and even during a single frame. Even if the amplitude of the high voltage phase is maintained to millivolt accuracy and the temperature is controlled within a fraction of a degree, it is still necessary to develop a way of computing the value of the mean gain from the output of the EMCCD, as it is the key element of an accurate processing of the output (see section ). The amplitude of the read-out noise is also a parameter that has to be considered for both PC and PP processing.

## Determining the amplitude of the read-out noise

The amplitude of the read-out noise is determined simply by taking many (a hundred or more) dark frames through the EM amplifier set to an EM gain of 1. Then, every pixel is subtracted by the mean value of the corresponding pixels in all the other frames (to overcome the effect of the bias that varies through the frame). The standard deviation of the signal can then be determined to give the amplitude of the read-out noise. The effect of the spurious charges should not affect the computed value. Since a typical value for the read-out noise of the EM amplifier is typically 30-60 electrons (at a high pixel frequency), the noise caused by the spurious charges ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.06-0.15 electron/pixel) is completely drown.

This value should not be affected by the temperature of the CCD. Also, since it is only used as the threshold for the detection limit, an error of a few percent will not badly affect the resulting SNR of the system (see section ).

## Determining the gain of an EMCCD

The spurious charges that are generated during the vertical transfer can be used to calculate the mean gain of the EMCCD amplification register. Since the intensity of this signal is well below 1 event/pixel/frame, it will be dominated by single events. A thorough understanding of the signal processing can be used to recover the value of the gain. The iterative process described below can be used.

As a first approximation, the gain is estimated by finding the mean value of the pixels that have a value greater than the read-out noise. The value of the read-out noise determined in section can be used with a 5.5$\sigma$ threshold. Then, one can estimate the signal level (the amount of spurious charges per pixel per frame), $f$, that is seen on the CCD by simply dividing the mean value of all the pixels by the gain found. These two approximated values for the gain and the signal, are then refined by mean of an iterative process:

1.  The threshold applied will cause the loss of the events that have an output value lower than the threshold. One can estimate the amplitude of this loss by finding the probability of having output values lower than the threshold for the estimated gain, assuming that pixels will not have undergone more than one event: $$p(x<th) = \sum_{x=1}^{th}{\dfrac{e^{-x/g}}{g}},$$ where $th$ is the threshold expressed in electrons and $g$ is the approximated gain. The estimated signal level may then be corrected for these lost events with $$f_{1} = \dfrac{f}{1-p(x<th)},$$ where $f$ is the approximated signal level.

2.  Then, one may also remove the events that were counted as real events but were due to the read-out noise. This is simply the probability of having events of an amplitude higher than $5.5\sigma$ for a normal distribution of standard deviation $\sigma$, which is $$p(x>5.5\sigma) = 0.5\left[1-\mathrm{erf}\left(\dfrac{5.5}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right],$$ where $\mathrm{erf}$ is sometimes called the *error function* and is defined as being $$\mathrm{erf}(z) = \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^z{e^{-t^2}dt}.$$ Then, one can once more correct the signal amplitude with $$f_{2} = f_{1} \left(1-p(x>5.5\sigma)\right),$$ where $f_{1}$ is the signal amplitude found at step 1. This correction is very small for a threshold value of $5.5\sigma$. However, if a lower threshold is used, it will become increasingly important to apply it.

3.  So far, calculations involved assuming that no more than one event per pixel was generated. However, even at low signal values, there are slight chances that a Poissonian process will generate more than one event into a single pixel. This can be compensated with the following equation $$g = \dfrac{1-e^{-\alpha}}{\alpha},$$ which gives $g$, the proportion of counted events for a Poissonian process generating $\alpha$ events per interval. Since the exact value of the signal level is not known, one may simply use $\alpha = f_2$ when $f_2$ is small ($<0.4$) to approximate $g$. Then, the signal amplitude, may be corrected with $$f_{3} = \dfrac{f_{2}}{g},$$ where $f_{2}$ is the value calculated at step 2.

4.  Finally, a new gain may be calculated by using the corrected signal amplitude of step 3 and by simply dividing the mean value of all the pixels by this new signal amplitude. Then, one may loop to step 1 to calculate an increasingly accurate gain, using the gain just calculated as the input of the algorithm. However, the signal amplitude estimate $f$, used to iterate, must be the one calculated as a first approximation (rather than $f_3$).

This algorithm can determine the gain of the EMCCD to a fraction of a percent accuracy. In fact, the achievable accuracy is of the order of $$\eta \simeq \sqrt{\dfrac{\sigma}{n_c}},$$ where $n_c$ is the total detected charges and $\sigma$ is the read-out noise. Thus, if the spurious charge generation rate is of the order of 0.1 event/pixel/frame, the read-out noise is of the order of 50 electrons and if one wants to determine the gain to an accuracy of 0.1%, a *strict minimum* of $5 \times 10^8$ pixels must be used, which means the processing of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2000 full 512x512 dark frames.

The exact knowledge of the amplitude of read-out noise is not necessary to determine the gain. Through simulations, it was determined that an error of 10% on the amplitude of the read-out noise induces an additional relative error of the same amplitude. Thus, for a wanted accuracy of 0.1%, an error of 10% on the read-out noise will give a final accuracy of 0.11%. However, a greater error on the determination of the read-out noise will induce an ever increasing error on the gain as the algorithm will get confused. Also, this algorithm is working fine for systems where the gain is more than 10 times larger than the read-out noise.

This algorithm assumes that the spurious charges are generated before entering the EM register. Thus, if some of the charges are generated into the EM register, all charges will not travel the same amount of multiplication elements and will therefore not have the same mean gain at the output. However, the algorithm described can still be used to test the variability of the gain of an EMCCD as the amplitude of the noise arising from the serial register should be steady (in a temperature controlled environment) and will cause the gain to be under-estimated by a fixed ratio. Thus, this code can be used to determine *in-situ* if the gain of the EM stage has changed. If the amount of spurious charges generated into the serial register is known, the exact gain can still be extracted from this algorithm by applying a conversion factor.

# Conclusions

The numerical simulations of the EMCCD show that the noise factor induced by the statistical gain cannot be overcome by means of the PP processing explained in \[\]. The simulations also show that the EMCCD is behaving as expected in analogic mode, where the noise factor of $2^{1/2}$ has the effect of halving the QE of the CCD. The PC processing allows one to overcome the noise factor at the price of detecting no more than one event/pixel/frame.

The accurate determination of the gain of the EMCCD is possible through the algorithm developed in . An IDL routine implementing this algorithm is available at <http://www.astro.umontreal.ca/~odaigle/emccd>.


abstract: A widely accepted definition of intelligence in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI) still eludes us. Due to our exceedingly rapid development of AI paradigms, architectures, and tools, the prospect of naturally arising AI consciousness seems more likely than ever. In this paper, we claim that all current intelligence tests are insufficient to point to the existence or lack of intelligence **as humans intuitively perceive it**. We draw from ideas in the philosophy of science, psychology, and other areas of research to provide a clearer definition of the problems of artificial intelligence, self-awareness, and agency. We furthermore propose a new heuristic approach to test for artificial self-awareness and outline a possible implementation. Finally, we discuss some of the questions that arise from this new heuristic, be they philosophical or implementation-oriented.
address: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Philosophy; Independent Researcher
author:  [^1]
bibliography: ecai.bib
title: Suffering Toasters - A New Self-Awareness Test for AI

# Introduction

The age of information may have brought humans to the brink of a new evolutionary stage. The amount of data collected and analyzed stands today at one Petabyte (PB) a day . The information explosion enabled the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) using neural networks and other paradigms. The Utopian (or perhaps dystopian) vision of thinking machines seems closer than ever. Two decades ago, the tech blogosphere was hyped about the idea of "singularity", a scenario in which machines self-replicate and self-improve in an accelerating fashion, culminating in achieving consciousness . Even as these words are written, the prospect of a six-month moratorium on AI development looms large . But what practical tools can even measure if machines are thinking? The literature discussing philosophy and computer science offers multiple intelligence tests aimed at assessing thought and awareness, and some have been successfully implemented. A cursory list includes Turing's imitation game , the Winograd scheme , the induction test , and ACT tests . However, in the following sections, we claim that all currently existing intelligence tests do not point to autonomous thinking in the way our intuition understands this term .

In a nutshell, we are going to try to elicit a 'cogito' moment from the machine and retrieve evidence that indeed it had happened.

# Philosophy of Self-Awareness and AI

**"Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet"** . Coined by Larry Tesler, this adage presents a serious difficulty. To this date, all existing intelligence tests are unsatisfactory. While various AIs pass some or all of the tests mentioned above, we are still reluctant to ascribe intelligence to any of them . For instance, recent claims regarding AI gaining sentience are largely scoffed at . Thus we "shift the goal-posts" to avoid recognizing the intelligence of machines . One of the most misconstrued sentences is Descartes' cogito , loosely translated as "I think therefore I am". The statement points to the self-evidence of one's own existence, as thought (even if it is a false notion) is an inevitability. We thus argue that the concept of intelligence as ordinarily percieved by humans includes self-awareness as a necessary condition.

## Pitfalls of AI Intelligence Tests

One of the problems of existing intelligence tests is that they all rely on an observer's willingness to ascribe intelligence to the machine. However, it is not clear we have the inclination to ascribe intelligence to machines, nor is it obvious we will develop such an inclination in the future. . It would thus be beneficial to develop a test that is self-referential, and uses the machine's own characteristics to test itself. Another problem is the definition of intelligence as a "system's ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation" . This definition and others rely on the existence of some external input, which is superfluous a la Descartes. Finally, in the mechanistic view, self-awareness is an emergent property. In other words, mental events supervene upon physical events. Thus intelligence cannot be directly programmed. Rather, it should emerge from the complexity of more basic infrastructure.

As a concrete example, we examine the Turing test. Firstly a human tester supplies questions. The testee returns answers, and 'tries' to convince the tester it is human. Thus, it is up to a human observer to decide whether or not a specific AI is intelligent. We naturally assign intelligence to other humans, on the premise of similarity, biological and cultural. The Turing test supposedly finds a way around the biological similarity issue, as the AI is behind a 'curtain'. It furthermore leverages learned cultural similarities to confound the human tester. Finally, the 'Chinese Room Experiment' critiques the notion of intelligence as implied by the Turing test .

The theoretical method for gauging intelligence that we offer is predicated on evidence of self-awareness through the **denial** of any input. Intelligence is thus assessed by a measure intrinsic to the AI. The observer is relegated to being a passive entity rather than an active participant. Furthermore, it has intrinsic criteria which prohibit a directly programmed intelligence from passing the test. Additionally, the observer is not tasked with ascribing intelligence. Rather, they are tasked with assessing the perceived behavior of the AI as compared to its previous behavior patterns. Thus the test becomes self-referential, where the machine can point at itself and demonstrate its own awareness.

# Psychology of Sensory Deprivation

The seminal work of the cognitive psychologists Hebb, Heron and Bexton , showed that a prolonged period of SD has extremely detrimental effects on the human psyche. During this period, a cascade of mental breakdown is often observed . The symptoms of this breakdown include aural, tactile, and visual hallucinations, often accompanied by heightened anxiety. The end state of this breakdown is psychosis, and sometimes even death . Furthermore, subjects display the adverse effects of Sensory Deprivation (SD) long after it has ended. These effects may subside after a prolonged period of weeks to years. However, in some cases, the effects remain permanent.

Conversely, relatively short-term periods of SD have shown great promise as a treatment method for anxiety disorders and other psychological states. Often subjects report a feeling of well-being and internal quiescence after sessions ranging from an hour to a few hours. This motivated us to find a heuristic model of awareness. The characteristics of this model should include the following:

-   A baseline awareness level.

-   Awareness baseline levels are flexible.

-   Awareness is self-coupled. One can be aware of their own awareness.

-   Awareness is responsive to external events.

-   External inputs have a stabilizing effect on the baseline function.

-   Devoid of external input the function presents chaotic behavior.

As a demonstrative, we propose the following differential equation as a model for awareness levels: $$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
       \ddot{D} & = & -\alpha \dot{D} -\beta D -\gamma D^3 +A\sin(\omega t)  \\
       \dot{S} & = & C(I(t) -aS) \\
        R & = & S+\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon +S}\right)D
    \end{array}\right.$$ in which $D$ is the duffing equation, $S$ is an exponentially suppressive equation that is responsive to $I$ the external input, $\varepsilon$ is a small constant, and $R$ is the overall awareness level with response to the external input. Figure  demonstrates an example of a model for an awareness response function.

## The Hebb Protocol

The protocol reportedly used by Hebb, and later recreated by the BBC and Professor Ian Robbins , was the following:

-   Have subjects perform a battery of cognitive tests such as the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT, ), the word-color Stroop test .

-   Place subjects in complete sensory deprivation for a prescripted period, while monitoring them for signs of physical and psychological distress.

-   Immediately following the conclusion of the isolation period, have the subjects perform the same battery of tests.

-   Compare the results.

-   Every week, following the experiment, have subjects perform another battery of tests.

-   Compare the results and track the recovery rate of subjects.

We claim that self-awareness is a threshold condition for intelligence, and is a self-coupled property. In the absence of external input, it displays a self-destructive dynamic. Thus, the core of this testing method is the following proposition:

**Proposition 1**. *A unique quality of self-aware organisms is their inability to abide by long-term sensory deprivation (SD).*

# The Suggested Test

We suggest that a threshold condition for intelligence is self-awareness. Furthermore, a necessary condition for self-awareness is the mind. The suggested test uses the mind of the subject to indicate its presence by subjecting it to SD. We propose to subject an AI candidate, to the Hebb protocol. We expect a machine to be fully agnostic to such tests, as machines have a stable steady state which shows minimal perturbations. If a machine displays unprompted signs of distress or if the functionality of the system suffers due to SD, we can attribute it to an internal process of the mind This is due to the elimination of all external input. A schema of the proposed test is depicted in figure .

## Preconditions for the Test

Machines are programmable. Thus, it is not far-fetched to imagine a machine that is programmed to display these signs of distress. This can be done by employing internal clocks, and quasi-random processes. However, since materialistically the mind is regarded as an emergent property, it is to be insisted that the candidate AI will not be specifically programmed to 'cheat' this test. This means there can be no code that explicitly directs the machine to display the behaviouristic symptoms of a human under SD conditions. Rather, the behaviouristic characteristics of human behaviour under SD should be achieved by the learning properties of the machine.
To be clear, it is a matter of simple programming to incorporate an internal clock that activates a sub routine that displays erratic behaviour after some predefined period. A requirement for irreproducibility may partly offset the prospects of cheating in such a way.

## Performing the Test

Provided a true-AI candidate, and after securing its consent the test is performed as follows:

-   Perform a matriculated test of the AI's ability to perform its tasks.
    Such tests could include measuring the latency between task assignment and resolution, the correct resolution of a multi-staged problem, precision of image reconstruction etc.

-   Disconnect all sensors of the AI that are aimed at sensing the outer world.

-   Store the system in a temperature-controlled room, for a predefined period.

-   After said time period has elapsed, reconnect the aforementioned sensors.

-   Perform the same battery of tests as in the first stage, and compare the results.

-   Assess whether any significant functionality loss has been displayed.

## Passing the Test

A machine would be considered to have passed the test, if:

-   During the SD period, the machine displayed signs of distress and 'mental' deterioration.

-   Immediately after the test, the machine displays signs of reduced cognitive ability.

-   The machine displays a recuperation graph.

-   An identical machine, subjected to the same exact test(s) displays the same overall dynamic, but different results.

## Pitfalls And Difficulties

It is not yet clear what a cognitive test for an AI may look like. However, it suffices that the capacity of the AI to perform its purpose is significantly reduced, to point to the effect of SD on the examined AI. Moreover, what may constitute sensory deprivation for a machine? That a machine has sensors is obvious, be it Human-Interface elements such as keyboards and pointing methods, or cameras and microphones which could be analogous to eyes and ears. A full-proof method for SD then, would be to cut the input, either by turning off these devices or applying other methods. Still there are internal sensors for a computer, such as thermostats, current and voltage gates etc. Thus a PC cannot be devoid of sensors altogether, but even humans cannot be cut from their internal sense of blood movement, heartbeat, internal dialogue etc. Another issue is assessing the correct time period for examination. While in the following example, these issues are addressed, it is for the purposes of demonstration. Further research is needed to fully answer these questions.

## A Concrete Example

While currently there are no candidate AIs (to the best of the author's knowledge) that claim self-awareness, a concrete if a bit theoretical example is warranted. Let us use an autonomous car as an example. However, this is a special autonomous car, as its creators claim the car is self-aware.

-   The first stage is to secure the consent of that car, but let us suppose that was handled.

-   The second stage would be to examine and test the performance of the car with regard to the tasks it is supposed to perform. For instance, we record the latency of response to path changes, and to different arising situations on the road. We may also record the input and output of its image recognition elements and analyze the accuracy. Another metric would be to look into the classifier element and produce and study the confusion matrix.

-   After the initial metrics were measured, we disconnect or disable all external sensors. For instance, we may block the different cameras that constitute its sensors in the relevant spectrum. Since putting the car inside a neutral buoyancy tank may be impractical, the internal gyros of the car should be disabled. The radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors elements could be disabled by projecting the equivalent of white noise in the relevant frequencies.

-   The heart of the test is now simply letting the car stay stationary, without any input, for a lengthy period of time. What may constitute lengthy is an important question. The human response time is around $0.25$ seconds. A long period for humans would be several days. One 24-hour day is made out of around $350,000$ human response periods. We can use this as a guiding heuristic, where we measure the response time of an autonomous car to a stimulus. We mark this as $\Delta t_{re}$ i.e. reaction time period, and so a 24-hour day in "car-time" would be around $D_{car}\simeq350,000\Delta t_{re}$. Thus a reasonable exam time would be a few $D_{car}$.

-   After this time period, we reconnect or re-enable the sensors, and remove the white-noise-like input. Immediately, we perform the same battery of tests we started with (latency metrics, confusion matrix etc.). We compare the results to see whether a significant deterioration of performance had occurred.

If significant deterioration of performance is detected, one could surmise the car may be self-aware.

# Tangent Topics

This paper raises many issues. Chief among them are two: 1) Ethical issues regarding the use of what amounts to torture of a possibly sentient being; and 2) The issue of the mind being an emergent quantity. Given a sentient AI, we do not see any ethical way of administering the test. However, the issue arises only for a successful test. Thus the ethical problem will only be relevant in hindsight. A possible solution for this problem is securing the candidate AI's consent. If the AI is found to be non-sentient, the point is moot. On the other hand, if the AI is found to be sentient, it has given its consent. Still, this practice may be unsatisfactory as the level of sentience of the AI could be that of a small child for instance, in which case consent is meaningless. The same such tests have already been performed on human beings, and summarized in several sources (e.g. ). Furthermore, such experiments with human volunteers have been known to be authorized and performed (see e.g. ). The second issue, while interesting, does not affect the voracity of the test. But, it does affect the implication of what might constitute a mind. An interesting question arises from the ireproducibillity requirement. Since true randomness is rare, if we reproduce the same experiment with the same exact initial conditions, a non-aware agent will yield the exact same results. However, it is not clear that human beings actually fulfill this requirement, since even identical twins are not the same exact system with the same exact initial conditions.

# Summary

The current battery of intelligence and self-awareness tests applied to AI, all have the same failing. They all rely directly on an observer's input and never display any independent activity. We proposed a test, which relies instead on the **lack** of any input and the AI candidate is always compared to itself. The criteria for success is the display of distress and faculty decline as a result of sensory deprivation. Furthermore, a prolonged recuperation period is an indication of the long-term damage that so strongly characterizes sentient beings after SD instances.
TL;DR: we propose putting your toaster in a dark corner to see if it cries.

We would like to thank Orly Shenker and Yochai Ataria for many useful discussions and invaluable guidance.

[^1]: Corresponding Author. Email: email@example.com


abstract: We present a transportable system for ocean observations in which a small autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) adaptively collects spatially diverse samples with aid from a team of inexpensive, passive floating sensors known as *drifters*. Drifters can provide an increase in spatial coverage at little cost as they are propelled about the survey area by the ambient flow field instead of with actuators. Our iterative planning approach demonstrates how we can use the ASV to strategically deploy drifters into points of the flow field for high expected information gain, while also adaptively sampling the space. In this paper, we examine the performance of this heterogeneous sensing system in simulated flow field experiments.
author: Johanna Hansen$^{1}$, Sandeep Manjanna$^{1}$, Alberto Quattrini Li$^{2,3}$, Ioannis Rekleitis$^{2}$ and Gregory Dudek$^{1}$ [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]
bibliography: IEEEabrv.bib; bib.bib
title:  **Autonomous Marine Sampling Enhanced by Strategically Deployed Drifters in Marine Flow Fields**

# Overview

In this paper, we present an information-theoretic approach for fast marine surveying with an autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) which strategically augments coverage by strategically deploying floating marine sensors called *drifters*. The drifters are moved about the environment by a flow field consisting of water current at a fixed depth and provide improved spatial coverage with little added cost to the system in terms of time or expense. Combined data from the ASV and drifters allows the vehicle to adaptively sample information-rich regions and calculate new drifter deployment points. In this paper we explore the utility of this mixed-modality surveying scheme and provide empirical results from ocean flow simulations.

Traditionally, environmental surveys of coastal areas required sophisticated (costly) robotic vehicles or significant human effort to effectively model a region. Most autonomous robotic surveying systems employ an exhaustive waypoint-tracking sampling strategy over an unknown survey region which can be tedious and impractical if the survey space is large and/or the phenomenon of interest has only a few regions with important information. Human-driven sampling systems, however, often make informed decisions about where to collect data based on their prior knowledge and expertise, preferring to heavily sample unpredictable areas and take fewer measurements from well-modeled areas. Our system seeks to make similar informed sampling choices to reduce the need for the ASV to physically move about a survey region.

Non-actuated marine drifters like the ones employed in this paper are controllable only at the launch point, but move passively once they are deployed by exploiting the external forces of the local flow field (usually water current). Drifters can be equipped with a variety of sensors for collecting georeferenced data and have been used extensively in oceanography , filling an important niche with their long battery life and low-cost. Although these passive sensors are unable to control their own movement, given knowledge of an ambient flow field and physical characteristics of the device, the trajectory of a drifter can be approximately calculated from a given position. In our system, data from deployed sensors (including the boat and deployed drifters) is iteratively collected, assimilated, and used in a particle simulator to estimate the value of sampling a location.

Our system can be used to collect data for phenomena which are locally observable by the drifters and the ASV with no knowledge of the region before beginning a survey. The ASV and all drifters must be capable of collecting compatibly, transformable samples from $1)$ the specified *phenomena of interest* and $2)$ from the flow field at the same fixed depth. In this paper, we select the *phenomena of interest* to be the flow field itself for the purpose of improving visualization, however, we can easily optimize for a different phenomena such as oxygen, visual observation, or temperature. We leverage predictive modeling to distribute sampling amongst actuated (relatively costly ASV) and non-actuated (low-cost drifters) sensor platforms so that many inexpensive drifters are exploited, while the ASV intelligently samples regions which are not easily reachable by the non-actuated sensors. We show that this can result in faster surveys in many environments.

# Background

Although complete sampling of region at a higher than Nyquist frequency is almost always ideal, practical constraints often limit the time or resources that can be used to collect data in real systems. When time allows, often a Boustrophedon or *lawnmower* style sampling pattern is used to map an entire survey area. However, in some instances, such as those in which high-variable data clusters in spatial regions, an adaptive sampling approach can yield similar modeling errors with significant reduction in the time/energy resources needed .

We demonstrate the utility of a non-uniform sampling technique for exploiting expected high-information regions of a survey area using a low-resolution survey by the ASV as a prior and samples gathered from randomly deployed drifters as a prior in . In , we found drifter deployment points which optimized for survey coverage. In this work, we combine our previous work into a comprehensive technique for optimizing modeling error with an ASV which adaptively samples and deploys drifters so as to split the burden of spatial sampling. Others have shown that drifters can be used to exploit the unique nature of flow fields to transport drifters for sampling, search, and exploration . In , the authors present an approach to multi-day sampling of time and spatially varying oceanographic phenomena in which drifters inform autonomous underwater vehicles of the movement of features of interest. Like our approach, others have utilized flow fields for tracking features of interest and for generating informed paths .

# Method

Formally, we are considering the problem of physically collecting point measurements over a defined marine region, $S$, with one ASV and a number, $N_d$ of marine drifters so as to reconstruct the spatially distributed *phenomena of interest*, $I$, as accurately as possible with minimal time invested. The survey space, $S$, is discretized into $m \times n$ square cells of size $r$, where $r$ is related to the sample validity of the sensors used. At each update, we assimilate samples that have been collected by the ASV and deployed drifters. An update occurs after the ASV has traveled $F_n$ grid cells.

Our drifter deployment approach relies on estimating an observable, but non-uniform flow field, $V$, to evaluate deployment locations. The complete flow field calculation presented in Equation is simplified in our approach by assuming that $V$ is constant over our observation window and that our observations are taken from a fixed depth. Thus, we can describe $V$ in Euclidean space as $\vec{V}=\vec{V}(x,y)$, which is a function of coordinates in space ($x$,$y$) and the velocity at every point in $\vec{V}$ is defined by components in each coordinate direction as $\vec{V}=u\vec{i}+v\vec{j}$.

$$\vec{V}=u(x,y,z,t)\vec{i} + v(x,y,z,t)\vec{j} + w(x,y,z,t)\vec{k}
\label{eq:flow}$$

With a perfectly known flow field, $\vec{V}$, and an initial location of point particle, it is possible to calculate trajectory of the particle through $\vec{V}$ using the advection equation. However, since at the beginning of the survey, the flow field is largely unknown and our drifters are not point particles, but physical devices with imperfect models, we can only roughly estimate trajectories from a particular deployment point. In order to find deployment locations which will results in high-information gain trajectories, we first estimate the flow field from observed data and then use a computationally tractable process similar to what was first described in to propose and evaluate launch points.

## Modeling the Survey Region

We employ a Gaussian process (GP) for assimilation of $I$ and $V$ data points. Gaussian processes have been widely used for data assimilation and robot-planning because of their sample efficiency and uncertainty measure. We formulate this problem of predicting the unsampled points of $S$ as a Bayesian regression problem. The GPs used in these experiments have exponential kernels, $K(a,a') = \sigma^2 \exp(\frac{(a - a')^2}{2 l^2})$, with $\sigma=1$, $l=4$. In this notation, $l$ is the *length scale* parameter which regulates how far the GP will extrapolate from an observed data point and $\sigma$ is a scaling factor that determines the average distance the function will be from the mean. The covariance matrix of the GP, $U$, provides us with a measure of uncertainty of the estimate that describes the similarity between every pair of input points $K(a,a')$. We use a modified version of the uncertainty measure of our estimate $\hat{I}$ of the true $I$ as the *Reward Map*, $R$ which will inform the ASV's adaptive path planning and the selection of drifter deployment points.

## Adaptive Path Planning

To drive exploration and mapping into areas of expected high information gain we use the uncertainty estimate from the assimilation step, $R$, as a reward function for finding the value of sampling each cell in $S$. We utilize Value Iteration, an approach for finding optimal policies as defined by the Bellman equation in a Markov Decision Process . The value of sampling each cell from a given state is described by $V^*$ (Equation ). Once $V^*$ is found, the optimal policy $\pi^*$ from a given state ($s$) can be found by taking the action $a$ with the largest value. In our experiments, we set the discount factor, $\gamma=0.95$. $$\label{eq:value_func}
  V^*(s) = \max_a\left(R(s,a) + \gamma \sum_{s' \in S} p(s'|s,a) V^*(s')\right),$$

$$\label{eq:policy}
  \pi^*(s) = arg \max_a\left(R(s,a) + \gamma \sum_{s' \in S} p(s'|s,a) V^*(s')\right)$$ Ideally, for full Markovian guarantees, after each sample is collected, data assimilation would be recomputed and a new reward map calculated, however, this is computationally intractable. Empirically, we have found that performing a data assimilation update every $F_n=15$ steps to work well in practice. We negate the reward map at the coordinates of each step as it is planned with Value Iteration as an approximation to the full recomputation. For full details regarding this sequential decision making process, refer to our previous work .

## Strategic Drifter Deployment

We use a particle trajectory modeling framework, OpenDrift , to estimate likely paths of drifters with given starting points under our estimate of the flow field $\hat{V}$. We model trajectories twice in each update, first to predict hypothetical trajectories for proposed deployment locations and again to estimate the future paths of drifters which are already deployed so as to account for their future in the Reward Map, $R$.

For each deployed drifter, we seed $n_f$ points ($n_f=5$ in these experiments) in a 2 m radius around the last known location and use OpenDrift to find possible future trajectories so we can update $R$ to reflect the best estimate of where the drifters will travel. For each deployed drifter, $\frac{1}{n_f}$ is subtracted from $R$ at each point in the estimated future trajectories and is used in path planning and finding proposal points. The expected future trajectory of a newly deployed drifter is shown in gray in Figure and is reflected in the $R$ which corresponds to the background of Figures and .

We assume that all $N_d$ drifters used in the experiment are carried on the ASV and can be autonomously deployed in $D_p$ seconds (where $D_p=10$ in our experiments). The deployment of a drifter takes time and energy to travel to an appealing launch location, but thereafter, the data collected from the drifter comes at no cost to the ASV.

It is computationally expensive to predict drifter trajectories, so we use a method of reducing the number of points to evaluate as originally described in previous work, . The multistage proposal process was inspired by modern object recognition systems such as . Spatially diverse points are generated by performing rejection sampling over likelihood matrix of size $S$ consisting of a normalized combination of $R$, Gaussian noise, and a safety buffer. This likelihood matrix makes proposal points in areas that are high-uncertain locations more likely. The safety buffer ensures that no points will be proposed near the edge of the survey space. In this paper, we sample $1000$ unique points with rejection sampling over the likelihood matrix and then prune these points using non-maximum suppression (NMS) until we have a chosen a few points to evaluate with the particle simulator ($20$ in this paper). NMS greedily selecting high-value proposals while deleting nearby proposals which cover the same area so as to achieve spatially diverse points.

Trajectories are found for the top proposal points by simulating paths from each of the points for the expected battery life of the drifters ($4$ hours in these experiments) with our best estimate of the flow field, $\hat{V}$ (shown in Figure ). The resulting trajectories are scored by summing the expected sampling points in $R$. The highest scoring proposal points (the top $10$ of the $20$ evaluated in the experiments presented here) are then passed to the ASV decision process for consideration (proposal point score is shown by their respective size in the pink $x$s in Figure ).

# Decision State

While the ASV still has undeployed drifters, it must decide at each update step whether to deploy a drifter at a proposal point or adaptively sample the area. Our system provides a variable from which to control this decision point, $B_n$. At each of these decision points, the ASV plans a *comparison path* using Value Iteration of $B_n$ steps and finds the total score that would be achieved with the $R$ through those points. Alternatively, for each proposal point, the ASV calculates a path of maximum length $B_n$ which travels through the point and finds the score of this path plus the expected value of the proposal point which was calculated in the previous step. This can be thought of as planning a non-optimal path to the proposal point, but with a bonus of earning the full trajectory of the drifter for free. If any of the proposal planned paths scores higher than the comparison path, then that path is executed up to the proposal point and the drifter is deployed.

If the comparison path scores better than any of the proposal paths or if there are no drifters left to deploy, then $F_n$ steps are executed. At this point, data assimilation is restarted and the process repeats itself, as seen in Figure .

# Experiments

In order to obtain quantitative results under ground truth, we evaluate our approach using $25$ archival flow fields from a Regional Ocean Modeling Systems (ROMS) dataset with simulated sensor and vehicle placements. This data set consists of an array of $100\times155$ measurements of in-situ ocean current. We rescaled the original dataset from 800 × 800 m grid cell size to an interval of 5 × 5 m in order to make the region feasibly traversable for a typical battery-powered ASV. As a result, we compared our results over $40$ different ocean flows over a region of size 500 × 775 m.

Our simulated ASV kept an average speed of 1 m s^−1^ and is capable of choosing $1$ of $8$ actions corresponding to movement into adjacent cells at each time step. We assume that neither the flow field nor the drifter load have any effect on the speed of the ASV. Our simulation allows the ASV to operate for $2$ simulated hours after the experiment begins.

Each released drifter will take a sample every $5$ seconds until it exits $S$ or its time limit expires. In the simulations depicted here, the drifters collect data for $4$ hours after their initial release. The entire experiment terminates when all deployed drifters have left $S$ or have expired, though the boat stops sampling after it reaches its time limit.

Each adaptive experiment starts the same way, with the ASV at coordinate $(0,0)$ and driving $75\%$ of the way to the diagonal corner of the survey area. After reaching this point, the first update is run, complete with data assimilation, deployment proposals, path comparisons, and finally driving the next path.

In Figure we show results from all $25$ simulated flow fields. Our system has an initial advantage over the ASV-only deployments, as it is able to achieve a more comprehensive model faster. As expected, however, after appropriate survey time, the ASV-only experiments sufficiently cover the region in a more complete manner. The selection of $B_n$ for a survey will determine how selective the ASV is when deploying drifters. We see in Figure that surveys in flow fields with more variability perform better without drifters of with large $B_n$. In the future, we hope to learn and adapt this parameter during surveys.

We have also conducted preliminary field experiments (see Figure ) which demonstrate the proof of concept of our system. We were able to successfully communicate with distributed sensors over WiFi and assimilate flow data collected from GPS measurements. At the time of the field experiments, we lacked an automated deployment mechanism.

It is also important to consider the added complexity of adding drifters to a survey team. Each additional sensor adds more hardware that must be maintained and repaired. In addition, if drifters are to be reused, they must be physically retrieved at the end of the experiment. Although they will typically have long battery life, drifters almost always cover a region more slowly than actuated vehicles.

# Conclusion

We investigate relationships between survey time, energy, and modeling error, and present a tunable algorithm for selectively choosing when to add additional drifters to the survey. We also show when drifters are not useful such as when there is an unstable or low-velocity flow field or when survey time is not limited.

Practical environmental surveys require trade-offs between cost, mobility, and spatial or temporal resolution. By exploiting the efficiencies of both active and passive sensor platforms, we are able to effectively observe environmental phenomena. We show that the proposed heterogeneous system selectively samples these environments to achieve faster modeling results in many scenarios.

[^1]: $^{1}$Mobile Robotics Lab at the Centre for Intelligent Machines at McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada `jhansen, msandeep,email@example.com`

[^2]: $^{2}$Autonomous Field Robotics Lab, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, `email@example.com`

[^3]: $^{3}$Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, `email@example.com`

[^4]: **Submitted to the 2018 IEEE/MTS OCEANS Conference. 978-1-4799-7492-4/15/\$31.00 ©2018 IEEE**