Quantifying what goes unseen in instrumented and autonomous vehicle perception sensor data – A case study

Abstract It is becoming common to use instrumented probe vehicles (IPV) equipped with perception sensors (e.g., LIDAR or radar) to monitor ambient traffic for empirical studies of traffic dynamics and driver behavior, while the rapidly advancing field of autonomous vehicles (AV) uses perception sensors to identify and mitigate hazards. Yet the perception sensors are far from perfect, so targets of interest go undetected. The “unseen” targets might lead to inaccurate theories of traffic flow or worse, autonomous vehicle crashes. The challenge with the unseen targets is that it is difficult to detect the absence. There is little study of how vehicle-mounted perception sensors perform “in the wild” because often the perception sensors themselves usually provide the best measurements available. The focus of this work is IPV data for offline study, but the general findings are also relevant for perception sensors used in AV applications. While there is a growing number of IPV data sets, to date most suffer from the lack of independent validation of the perception sensors. This paper fuses individual vehicle actuations from loop detectors and concurrent ambient vehicle trajectories collected from an IPV to provide a rare opportunity to assess the perception sensor performance in situ, using the loop detector data to “see” what is missed by the perception sensors. While the specific results are unique to the IPV, one should expect similar biases from other perception sensor data; though without an independent measure like the loop detectors in this study, it will be difficult to quantify what goes unseen in those data sets. These findings also highlight the need to develop means to actively calibrate mobile perception sensors for AV's. It is important to capture the behavior of these systems in situ, as maintained by private owners, though we envision in the case of an AV the role of the loop detectors might be replaced with localization information from other AV's. The data fusion has added benefits for the study of traffic dynamics, with the loop detectors providing continuous monitoring at the detector locations and the IPV providing spatially rich information about the ambient traffic as it travels between detector stations. This fused data set will be available upon publication.

[1]  Robert L. Bertini,et al.  Prototype for Data Fusion Using Stationary and Mobile Data , 2009 .

[2]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Estimating density and lane inflow on a freeway segment , 2003 .

[3]  Alejandra Medina Flintsch,et al.  A rule-based neural network approach to model driver naturalistic behavior in traffic , 2013 .

[4]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Vehicle reidentification and travel time measurement across freeway junctions using the existing detector infrastructure , 2007 .

[5]  Michael J. Cassidy,et al.  Vehicle reidentification and travel time measurement on congested freeways , 2002 .

[6]  Chris Bachmann,et al.  Multisensor Data Integration and Fusion in Traffic Operations and Management , 2012 .

[7]  Yanfeng Ouyang,et al.  Traffic state and emission estimation for urban expressways based on heterogeneous data , 2017 .

[8]  V. K. Zworykin,et al.  ELECTRONIC CONTROL OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON THE HIGHWAY , 1957 .

[9]  Xuesong Zhou,et al.  Traffic state estimation and uncertainty quantification based on heterogeneous data sources: A three detector approach , 2013 .

[10]  Ashish Bhaskar,et al.  Real-time traffic state estimation in urban corridors from heterogeneous data , 2016 .

[11]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Identifying and Correcting Pulse-Breakup Errors from Freeway Loop Detectors , 2011 .

[12]  Keith Redmill,et al.  Mining vehicle classifications from the Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System , 2015 .

[13]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Comparing INRIX speed data against concurrent loop detector stations over several months , 2014 .

[14]  Homayoun Najjaran,et al.  Autonomous vehicle perception: The technology of today and tomorrow , 2018 .

[15]  Jie Li,et al.  Diagnosing and Interpolating Loop Detector Data Errors with Probe Vehicle Data , 2014 .

[16]  E. Montroll,et al.  Traffic Dynamics: Studies in Car Following , 1958 .

[17]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Estimating travel times and vehicle trajectories on freeways using dual loop detectors , 2002 .

[18]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Quantifying Loop Detector Sensitivity and Correcting Detection Problems on Freeways , 2012 .

[19]  Keith Redmill,et al.  Collecting ambient vehicle trajectories from an instrumented probe vehicle: High quality data for microscopic traffic flow studies , 2016 .

[20]  Ho Lee,et al.  Identifying chronic splashover errors at freeway loop detectors , 2012 .

[21]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Identifying Lane-Change Maneuvers with Probe Vehicle Data and an Observed Asymmetry in Driver Accommodation , 2012 .

[22]  José Eugenio Naranjo,et al.  Floating Car Data Augmentation Based on Infrastructure Sensors and Neural Networks , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[23]  Roberto Horowitz,et al.  Fusing Loop and GPS Probe Measurements to Estimate Freeway Density , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[24]  Hesham Rakha,et al.  Application of Naturalistic Driving Data to Modeling of Driver Car-Following Behavior , 2013 .

[25]  Benjamin Coifman,et al.  Assessing the performance of SpeedInfo radar traffic sensors , 2017, J. Intell. Transp. Syst..