Safety Argument Considerations for Public Road Testing of Autonomous Vehicles

Autonomous vehicle (AV) developers test extensively on public roads, potentially putting other road users at risk. A safety case for human supervision of road testing could improve safety transparency. A credible safety case should include: (1) the supervisor must be alert and able to respond to an autonomy failure in a timely manner, (2) the supervisor must adequately manage autonomy failures, and (3) the autonomy failure profile must be compatible with effective human supervision. Human supervisors and autonomous test vehicles form a combined human-autonomy system, with the total rate of observed failures including the product of the autonomy failure rate and the rate of unsuccessful failure mitigation by the supervisor. A difficulty is that human ability varies in a nonlinear way with autonomy failure rates, counter-intuitively making it more difficult for a supervisor to assure safety as autonomy maturity improves. Thus, road testing safety cases must account for both the expected failures during testing and the practical effectiveness of human supervisors given that failure profile. This paper outlines a high level safety case that identifies key factors for credibly arguing the safety of an onroad AV test program. A similar approach could be used to analyze potential safety issues for high capability semiautonomous production vehicles.

[1]  Christina Kluge Human Reliability And Safety Analysis Data Handbook , 2016 .

[2]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Legibility and predictability of robot motion , 2013, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  Simon Burton,et al.  Making the Case for Safety of Machine Learning in Highly Automated Driving , 2017, SAFECOMP Workshops.

[4]  Andrzej Wardzinski,et al.  Safety Assurance Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles , 2008, SAFECOMP.

[5]  Simon Burton,et al.  Structuring Validation Targets of a Machine Learning Function Applied to Automated Driving , 2018, SAFECOMP.

[6]  Philip Koopman,et al.  Putting Image Manipulations in Context: Robustness Testing for Safe Perception , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR).

[7]  Atul Prakash,et al.  Robust Physical-World Attacks on Deep Learning Visual Classification , 2018, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[8]  Vincent Marchau,et al.  Policy aspects of driver support systems implementation: results of an international Delphi study , 1998 .

[9]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Automotive automation: Investigating the impact on drivers' mental workload , 1997 .

[10]  Ibrahim Habli,et al.  Assurance of Automotive Safety - A Safety Case Approach , 2010, SAFECOMP.

[11]  Ravishankar K. Iyer,et al.  Hands Off the Wheel in Autonomous Vehicles?: A Systems Perspective on over a Million Miles of Field Data , 2018, 2018 48th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN).

[12]  Stephen M. Casner,et al.  The challenges of partially automated driving , 2016, Commun. ACM.