自動運転の残存リスク定量安全検証を効率化する手法の評価
Towards more efficient quantitative safety validation of residual risk for assisted and automated driving
ISO 21448に基づき、ADAS/ADSの残存リスクを定量化するためのフィールド運用テストの削減アプローチを体系的に評価し、AEBを例にベースラインモデルを導出した。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの？
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい？
3. 技術・手法の肝は？
4. どうやって有効だと検証した？
5. 議論はある？
6. 次に読むべき論文は？
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Daniel Betschinske, Malte Schrimpf, Steven Peters, Kamil Klonecki, Jan Peter Karch, Moritz Lippert
分類: cs.RO
原文アブストラクト
The safety validation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) increasingly demands efficient and reliable methods to quantify residual risk while adhering to international standards such as ISO 21448. Traditionally, Field Operational Testing (FOT) has been pivotal for macroscopic safety validation of automotive driving functions up to SAE automation level 2. However, state-of-the-art derivations for empirical safety demonstrations using FOT often result in impractical testing efforts, particularly at higher automation levels. Even at lower automation levels, this limitation - coupled with the substantial costs associated with FOT - motivates the exploration of approaches to enhance the efficiency of FOT-based macroscopic safety validation. Therefore, this publication systematically identifies and evaluates state-of-the-art Reduction Approaches (RAs) for FOT, including novel methods reported in the literature. Based on an analysis of ISO 21448, two models are derived: a generic model capturing the argumentation components of the standard, and a base model, exemplarily applied to Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems, establishing a baseline for the real-world driving requirement for a Quantitative Safety Validation of Residual Risk (QSVRR). Subsequently, the RAs are assessed using four criteria: quantifiability, threats to validity, missing links, and black box compatibility, highlighting potential benefits, inherent limitations, and identifying key areas for further research. Our evaluation reveals that, while several approaches offer potential, none are free from missing links or other substantial shortcomings. Moreover, no identified alternative can fully replace FOT, reflecting its crucial role in the safety validation of ADAS and ADS.
