Advertisement

Autonomous Ground Vehicle Error Prediction Modeling to Facilitate Human-Machine Cooperation

Conference paper
  • 668 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 784)

Abstract

Autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs) play a significant role in performing the versatile task of replacing human-operated vehicles and improving vehicular traffic. This facilitates the advancement of an independent and interdependent decision-making process that increases the accessibility of transportation by reducing accidents and congestion. Presently, human-machine cooperation has focused on developing advanced algorithms for intelligent path planning and execution that is functional in providing reliable transportation. From industry simulations to field tests, AGVs exhibited various mishaps or errors that have a probability to cause fatalities and undermine the potential benefits. Therefore, it is very important to focus on reducing fatalities due to either human error or AGV system error. To solve this problem, the paper proposes an error prediction model to reduce AGV errors through appropriate human intervention. In this paper, we use the data from AGV exteroceptive sensors such as stereo-vision cameras, long and short range RADARS, and LiDAR to predict the AGVs error through Dempster–Shafer theory (DST) based on sensor data fusion technique. The results obtained in this work suggest that there is a lot of scope for improvement in the performance of AGV when conflicts are predicted in advance and alerting human for intervention. This would, in turn, improve human-machine cooperation.

Keywords

Autonomous Ground Vehicle Error prediction Human-Machine cooperation Dempster–Shafer Theory (DST) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The University of Toledo and Round 1 Award from the Ohio Federal Research Jobs Commission (OFMJC) through Ohio Federal Research Network (OFRN) fund this research project; authors also appreciate support of the Paul A. Homer Family CSTAR (Cybersecurity and Teaming Research) Lab and EECS (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) Department at the University of Toledo.

References

  1. 1.
    Gao, P., Kaas, H-.W., Mohr, D., Wee, D.: Automotive revolution–perspective towards 2030 How the convergence of disruptive technology-driven trends could transform the auto industry. Advanced Industries, McKinsey & Company (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Favarò, F., Eurich, S., Nader, N.: Autonomous vehicles’ disengagements: trends, triggers, and regulatory limitations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 110, 136–148 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noy, I.Y., Shinar, D., Horrey, W.J.: Automated driving: safety blind spots. Saf. Sci. 102, 68–78 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner, W., Herrmann, A.: An overview of technology, benefits and impact of automated and autonomous driving on the automotive industry. In: Digital Marketplaces Unleashed, pp. 427–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Lakhmani, S.G., Stowers, K., Selkowitz, A.R., Wright, J.L., Barnes, M.: Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 19(3), 259–282 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shi, W., Alawieh, M.B., Li, X., Yu, H.: Algorithm and hardware implementation for visual perception system in autonomous vehicle: a survey. Integr. VLSI J. 59, 148–156 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dang, L., Sriramoju, N., Tewolde, G., Kwon, J., Zhang, X.: Designing a cost-effective autonomous vehicle control system kit (AVCS Kit). In: AFRICON, pp. 1453–1458. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van der Heiden., R., Iqbal, S.T., Janssen, C.P.: Priming drivers before handover in semi-autonomous cars. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 392–404. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markoff, J.: Google cars drive themselves, in traffic. N. Y. Times 10(A1), 9 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johns, M., Sibi, S., Ju, W.: Effect of cognitive load in autonomous vehicles on driver performance during transfer of control. In: 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 1–4. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elkin, C., Kumarasiri, R., Rawat, D.B., Devabhaktuni, V.: Localization in wireless sensor networks: a Dempster-Shafer evidence theoretical approach. Ad Hoc Netw. 54, 30–41 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Högger, A.: Dempster Shafer Sensor Fusion for Autonomously Driving Vehicles: Association Free Tracking of Dynamic Objects (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, W.: Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif. Intell. 170, 909–924 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schubert, J.: Conflict management in Dempster-Shafer theory by sequential discounting using the degree of falsity. In: IPMU (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EECS Department, College of EngineeringThe University of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations