Search Results

With the widespread development of automated driving systems (ADS), it is imperative that standardized testing methodologies be developed to assure safety and functionality. Scenario testing evaluates the behavior of an ADS-equipped subject vehicle (SV) in predefined driving scenarios. This paper compares four modes of performing such tests: closed-course testing with real actors, closed-course testing with surrogate actors, simulation testing, and closed-course testing with mixed reality. In a collaboration between the Waterloo Intelligent Systems Engineering (WISE) Lab and AAA, six automated driving scenario tests were executed on a closed course, in simulation, and in mixed reality. These tests involved the University of Waterloo’s automated vehicle, dubbed the “UW Moose”, as the SV, as well as pedestrians, other vehicles, and road debris.

Safety assurance is a central concern for the development and societal acceptance of automated driving (AD) systems. Perception is a key aspect of AD that relies heavily on Machine Learning (ML). Despite the known challenges with the safety assurance of ML-based components, proposals have recently emerged for unit-level safety cases addressing these components. Unfortunately, AD safety cases express safety requirements at the system level and these efforts are missing the critical linking argument needed to integrate safety requirements at the system level with component performance requirements at the unit level. In this paper, we propose the Integration Safety Case for Perception (ISCaP), a generic template for such a linking safety argument specifically tailored for perception components. The template takes a deductive and formal approach to define strong traceability between levels.