2000 character limit reached
Towards a Completeness Argumentation for Scenario Concepts (2404.01934v1)
Published 2 Apr 2024 in cs.SE
Abstract: Scenario-based testing has become a promising approach to overcome the complexity of real-world traffic for safety assurance of automated vehicles. Within scenario-based testing, a system under test is confronted with a set of predefined scenarios. This set shall ensure more efficient testing of an automated vehicle operating in an open context compared to real-world testing. However, the question arises if a scenario catalog can cover the open context sufficiently to allow an argumentation for sufficiently safe driving functions and how this can be proven. Within this paper, a methodology is proposed to argue a sufficient completeness of a scenario concept using a goal structured notation. Thereby, the distinction between completeness and coverage is discussed. For both, methods are proposed for a streamlined argumentation and regarding evidence. These methods are applied to a scenario concept and the inD dataset to prove the usability.
- H. Winner, K. Lemmer, T. Form, and J. Mazzega, “PEGASUS—first steps for the safe introduction of automated driving,” in Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer International Publishing, jun 2018, pp. 185–195.
- H. Weber, C. Glasmacher, M. Schuldes, N. Wagener, and L. Eckstein, “Holistic driving scenario concept for urban traffic,” pp. 1–8, 2023.
- International Standartization Organization, “Road vehicles - test scenarios for automated driving systems - vocabulary,” 2022.
- S. Ulbrich, T. Menzel, A. Reschka, F. Schuldt, and M. Maurer, “Defining and substantiating the terms scene, situation, and scenario for automated driving,” in 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2015). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2015, pp. 982–988.
- S. Geyer, M. Kienle, B. Franz, H. Winner, K. Bengler, M. Baltzer, et al., “Concept and development of a unified ontology for generating test and use-case catalogues for assisted and automated vehicle guidance,” IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 183–189, may 2014.
- E. de Gelder, J. P. Paardekooper, A. K. Saberi, H. Elrofai, O. O. den Camp., S. Kraines, et al., “Towards an ontology for scenario definition for the assessment of automated vehicles: An object-oriented framework,” Jan. 2020.
- C. Glasmacher, M. Schuldes, P. Topalakatti, P. Hristov, H. Weber, and L. Eckstein, “Scenario-based model of the odd through scenario databases,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.vvm-projekt.de/en/publications
- M. Scholtes, L. Westhofen, L. R. Turner, K. Lotto, M. Schuldes, H. Weber, et al., “6-layer model for a structured description and categorization of urban traffic and environment,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 59 131–59 147, 2021.
- L. Guyonvarch, T. Hermitte, E. Lecuyer, A. Saulgrain, R. Krishnakumar, V. Herve, et al., “Data driven scenarios for ad/adas validation,” ADAS Validation, 2019.
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “2020 fars/crss coding and validation manual,” US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep., 2022.
- Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft, “Auswertung von straßenverkehrsunfällen teil 1: Führen und auswerten von unfalltypensteckkarten.”
- H. Feifel and M. Wagner, “Harmonized scenarios for the evaluation of active safety systems based on in-depth-accident data,” in 8th International Conference Expert Symposium on Accident Research (ESAR), Hannover, Germany, April 19-20, 2018.
- J. Bach, S. Otten, and E. Sax, “Model based scenario specification for development and test of automated driving functions,” in 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2016, pp. 1149–1155.
- E. de Gelder, O. O. den Camp, and N. de Boer, “Scenario categories for the assessment of automated vehicles,” CETRAN, Tech. Rep., 2020.
- H. Weber, J. Bock, J. Klimke, C. Roesener, J. Hiller, R. Krajewski, et al., “A framework for definition of logical scenarios for safety assurance of automated driving,” Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 20, no. sup1, pp. S65–S70, jun 2019.
- International Standardization Organisation, “Road vehicles safety of the intended functionality,” 2022.
- L. Hartjen, R. Philipp, F. Schuldt, and B. Friedrich, “Saturation effects in recorded maneuver data for the test of automated driving,” Uni-DAS, 2020.
- C. Glasmacher, M. Schuldes, H. Weber, N. Wagener, and L. Eckstein, “Acquire driving scenarios efficiently: A framework for prospective assessment of cost-optimal scenario acquisition,” 2023.
- C. Neurohr, L. Westhofen, M. Butz, M. H. Bollmann, U. Eberle, and R. Galbas, “Criticality analysis for the verification and validation of automated vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 18 016–18 041, 2021.
- International Standartization Organization, “Systems and software engineering systems and software assurance - part 2: Assurance case,” 2022.
- F. Warg and M. Skoglund, “Argument patterns for multi-concern assurance of connected automated driving systems,” in 4th International Workshop on Security and Dependability of Critical Embedded Real-Time Systems (CERTS 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019.
- A. Rudolph, S. Voget, and J. Mottok, “A consistent safety case argumentation for artificial intelligence in safety related automotive systems,” in ERTS 2018, 2018.
- F. Favaro, L. Fraade-Blanar, S. Schnelle, T. Victor, M. Peña, J. Engstrom, et al., “Building a credible case for safety: Waymo’s approach for the determination of absence of unreasonable risk,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01917.
- T. Brade and C. Glasmacher, “Towards a sufficient odd completeness,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.vvm-projekt.de/final-event
- N. Weber, C. Thiem, and U. Konigorski, “A needle in a haystack – how to derive relevant scenarios for testing automated driving systems in urban areas,” Sept. 2021.
- J. Bock, R. Krajewski, T. Moers, S. Runde, L. Vater, and L. Eckstein, “The ind dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic road user trajectories at german intersections,” in 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2020, pp. 1929–1934.
- Christoph Glasmacher (5 papers)
- Hendrik Weber (45 papers)
- Lutz Eckstein (42 papers)