An integrated architecture for intelligence evaluation of automated vehicles.

Increasing automation calls for evaluating the effectiveness and intelligence of automated vehicles. This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating the intelligence of automated vehicles. Firstly, we establish the evaluation environment for automated vehicles including test field, test task, and evaluation index. The test tasks include the single vehicle decision-making (turning, lane-changing, overtaking, etc.) and the maneuver execution of multi-vehicle interaction (obstacle avoidance, trajectory optimization, etc.). The intelligence evaluation index is the action amount of driving process considering the safety, efficiency, rationality and comfort. Then, we calculate the actual action amount of the automated vehicle in different scenarios in the test field. Finally, the least action calculated theoretically corresponds to the highest intelligence degree of the automated vehicle, and is employed as a standard to quantify the performance of other tested automated vehicles. The effectiveness of this framework is verified with two naturalistic driving datasets that contain the normal driving scenarios and high-risk scenarios. Specifically, the naturalistic lane-changing data filters 40,416 frames and 179 similar lane-changing trajectories. Compared with the lane-changing behavior of a large number of drivers, experimental results verify that the proposed algorithm can achieve the intelligence degree of drivers in the lane change scenario. Meanwhile, in 253 reconstructed high-risk scenarios, the intelligent risk avoidance ability of the proposed intelligence degree evaluation algorithm can be verified by comparing with the driver behavior and TTC algorithm. These experimental results show that the proposed framework can effectively quantify intelligence and evaluate the performance of automated vehicles under various scenarios.

[1]  Hampton C. Gabler,et al.  Method for Estimating Time to Collision at Braking in Real-World, Lead Vehicle Stopped Rear-End Crashes for Use in Pre-Crash System Design , 2011 .

[2]  Salissou Moutari,et al.  What are the factors that contribute to road accidents? An assessment of law enforcement views, ordinary drivers' opinions, and road accident records. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Rapid holistic perception and evasion of road hazards. , 2020, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  Helen Fagerlind,et al.  Assessment of Integrated Vehicle Safety Systems for Improved Vehicle Safety , 2012 .

[5]  Lutz Eckstein,et al.  The highD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic Vehicle Trajectories on German Highways for Validation of Highly Automated Driving Systems , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[6]  Dongsuk Kum,et al.  SCALE-Net: Scalable Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Network under Random Number of Interacting Vehicles via Edge-enhanced Graph Convolutional Neural Network , 2020, 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[7]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  An overview of the 100-car naturalistic study and findings , 2005 .

[8]  Nanning Zheng,et al.  Parallel testing of vehicle intelligence via virtual-real interaction , 2019, Science Robotics.

[9]  James R. Sayer,et al.  Integrated vehicle-based safety systems field operational test final program report. , 2011 .

[10]  Ding Zhao,et al.  Accelerated Evaluation of Automated Vehicles. , 2016 .

[11]  Eric Krotkov,et al.  The DARPA PerceptOR evaluation experiments , 2007, Auton. Robots.

[12]  Jian Sun,et al.  Accelerated testing for automated vehicles safety evaluation in cut-in scenarios based on importance sampling, genetic algorithm and simulation applications , 2018, Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles.

[13]  Wenshuo Wang,et al.  Effects of feature selection on lane-change maneuver recognition: an analysis of naturalistic driving data , 2018, Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles.

[14]  Javier Alonso-Mora,et al.  Planning and Decision-Making for Autonomous Vehicles , 2018, Annu. Rev. Control. Robotics Auton. Syst..

[15]  Philip Koopman,et al.  Challenges in Autonomous Vehicle Testing and Validation , 2016 .

[16]  Stewart A. Birrell,et al.  Test Scenario Generation for Driving Simulators Using Constrained Randomization Technique , 2017 .

[17]  Li Li,et al.  Intelligence Testing for Autonomous Vehicles: A New Approach , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles.

[18]  Li-Ta Hsu,et al.  Human-like motion planning model for driving in signalized intersections , 2017 .

[19]  Georgios E. Fainekos,et al.  Utilizing S-TaLiRo as an automatic test generation framework for autonomous vehicles , 2016, 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[20]  Jennifer Coopersmith,et al.  The Lazy Universe: An Introduction to the Principle of Least Action , 2017 .

[21]  Keqiang Li,et al.  Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system , 2016 .

[22]  Frank E. Schneider,et al.  Professional ground robotic competitions from an educational perspective: A consideration using the example of the European Land Robot Trial (ELROB) , 2012, 2012 6th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems.