Skip to main content

Autonomous Vehicles Meet the Physical World: RSS, Variability, Uncertainty, and Proving Safety

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11698))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The Responsibility-Sensitive Safety (RSS) model offers provable safety for vehicle behaviors such as minimum safe following distance. However, handling worst-case variability and uncertainty may significantly lower vehicle permissiveness, and in some situations safety cannot be guaranteed. Digging deeper into Newtonian mechanics, we identify complications that result from considering vehicle status, road geometry and environmental parameters. An especially challenging situation occurs if these parameters change during the course of a collision avoidance maneuver such as hard braking. As part of our analysis, we expand the original RSS following distance equation to account for edge cases involving potential collisions mid-way through a braking process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ADAC Vehicle Testing, Comparative Test of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, D., Östberg, K., Becker, M., Sivencrona, H., Warg, F.: Design of a knowledge-base strategy for capability-aware treatment of uncertainties of automated driving systems. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2018. LNCS, vol. 11094, pp. 446–457. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Czarnecki, K., Salay, R.: Towards a framework to manage perceptual uncertainty for safe automated driving. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2018. LNCS, vol. 11094, pp. 439–445. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), “Test Protocol – AEB Systems”, Version 2.0, March 2017

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fairclough, S., May, A., Carter, C.: The effect of time headway feedback on following behaviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 29(3), 387–397 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guiochet, J., Powell, D., Baudin, É., Blanquart, J.-P.: Online safety monitoring using safety modes. In: Workshop on Technical Challenges for Dependable Robots in Human Environments, PASADENA, United States, pp. 1–13, May 2008

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hulshof, W., Knight, I., Edwards, A., Avery, M., Grover, C.: Autonomous emergency braking test results. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kapania, N., Subosits, J., Gerdes, J.C.: A sequential two-step algorithm for fast generation of vehicle racing trajectories. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, V 138, Paper 091005, September 2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Koopman, P., Fratrik, F.: How many operational design domains, objects, and events? In: SafeAI 2019, AAAI, 27 January 2019

    Google Scholar 

  10. Orzechowski, P., Meyer, A., Lauer, M.: Tackling occlusions & limited sensor range with set-based safety verification. In: 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), November 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06579

  11. Ptolemy Project: heterogeneous modeling and design. https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/ptolemyII/index.htm. Accessed 5 May 2019

  12. Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shammah, S., Shashua, A.: On a formal model of safe and scalable self-driving cars. Mobileye 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06374. v6 updated 27 Oct 2018

  13. Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shammah, S., Shashua, A.: Vision zero: can roadway accidents be eliminated without compromising traffic throughput? In: Mobileye 2018. https://export.arxiv.org/abs/1901.05022

  14. Walker: Halliday/Resnick: Fundamentals of Physics, 8th edn., vol. 1. Wiley (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Intel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Koopman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Koopman, P., Osyk, B., Weast, J. (2019). Autonomous Vehicles Meet the Physical World: RSS, Variability, Uncertainty, and Proving Safety. In: Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11698. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26600-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26601-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics