2021, Volume 7, Issue 9
Engineering >> 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2020.10.018
Towards the Unified Principles for Level 5 Autonomous Vehicles
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Next Previous
Abstract
The rapid advance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) has motivated new perspectives and potential challenges for existing modes of transportation. Currently, driving assistance systems of Level 3 and below have been widely produced, and several applications of Level 4 systems to specific situations have also been gradually developed. By improving the automation level and vehicle intelligence, these systems
can be further advanced towards fully autonomous driving. However, general development concepts for Level 5 AVs remain unclear, and the existing methods employed in the development processes of Levels 0–4 have been mainly based on task-driven function development related to specific scenarios. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the problems encountered by high-level AVs. The essential logical
and physical mechanisms of vehicles have hindered further progression towards Level 5 systems. By exploring the physical mechanisms behind high-level autonomous driving systems and analyzing the essence of driving, we put forward a coordinated and balanced framework based on the brain–cerebellum–organ concept through reasoning and deduction. Based on a mixed mode relying on the crow inference and parrot imitation approach, we explore the research paradigm of autonomous learning and prior knowledge to realize the characteristics of self-learning, self-adaptation, and self-transcendence for AVs. From a systematic, unified, and balanced point of view and based on least action principles and unified safety field concepts, we aim to provide a novel research concept and develop an effective approach for the research and development of high-level AVs, specifically at Level 5.
Keywords
Autonomous vehicle ; Principle of least action ; Driving safety field ; Autonomous learning ; Basic paradigm
Figures
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
References
[ 1 ] Antsaklis PJ, Rahnama A. Control and machine intelligence for system autonomy. J Intell Robot Syst 2018;91:23–34. link1
[ 2 ] Fridman L. Human-centered autonomous vehicle systems: principles of effective shared autonomy. 2018. arXiv:1810.01835.
[ 3 ] SAE On-Road Automated Vehicles Standards Committee. J3016. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. Washington, DC: SAE International; 2014.
[ 4 ] Kamil F, Tang SH, Khaksar W, Zulkifli N, Ahmad SA. A review on motion planning and obstacle avoidance approaches in dynamic environments. Adv Robot Autom 2015;4(2):1000134. link1
[ 5 ] Ulbrich S, Reschka A, Rieken J, Ernst S, Bagschik G, Dierkes F, et al. Towards a functional system architecture for automated vehicles. 2017. arXiv:1703.08557.
[ 6 ] Badue C, Guidolini R, Carneiro RV, Azevedo P, Cardoso VB, Forechi A, et al. Selfdriving cars: a survey. 2019. arXiv:1901.04407.
[ 7 ] Dingus TA, Guo F, Lee S, Antin JF, Perez M, Buchanan-King M, et al. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016;113(10):2636–41. link1
[ 8 ] Muhrer E, Vollrath M. The effect of visual and cognitive distraction on driver’s anticipation in a simulated car following scenario. Transp Res Part F 2011;14 (6):555–66. link1
[ 9 ] Ou YK, Liu YC, Shih FY. Risk prediction model for drivers’ in-vehicle activities— application of task analysis and back-propagation neural network. Transp Res Part F 2013;18:83–93. link1
[10] Tas ÖS, Kuhnt F, Zöllner JM, Stiller C. Functional system architectures towards fully automated driving. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV); 2016 Jun 19–22; Gotenburg, Sweden; 2016. p. 304–9. link1
[11] Burns LD. A vision of our transport future. Nature 2013;497(7448):181–2. link1
[12] Khastgir S, Dhadyalla G, Birrell S, Redmond S, Addinall R, Jennings P. Test scenario generation for driving simulators using constrained randomization technique. SAE technical paper. Washington, DC: SAE International; 2017. No.:2017-01-1672.
[13] Hubmann C, Becker M, Althoff D, Lenz D, Stiller C. Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV); 2017 Jun 11–14; Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2017. link1
[14] Urmson C, Anhalt J, Bagnell D, Baker C, Bittner R, Clark MN, et al. Autonomous driving in urban environments: boss and the urban challenge. J Field Robot 2008;25(8):425–66. link1
[15] Zhou J, Li P, Zhou Y, Wang B, Zang J, Meng L. Toward new-generation intelligent manufacturing. Engineering 2018;4(1):11–20. link1
[16] Rasouli A, Tsotsos JK. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: a survey of theory and practice. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2020;21 (3):900–18. link1
[17] Jo K, Kim J, Kim D, Jang C, Sunwoo M. Development of autonomous car—part Ⅰ: distributed system architecture and development process. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2014;61(12):7131–40. link1
[18] Noh S, An K. Decision-making framework for automated driving in highway environments. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2018;19(1):58–71. link1
[19] Shalev-Shwartz S, Shammah S, Shashua A. Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driving. 2016. arXiv:1610.03295.
[20] Sun Z, Huang Z, Zhu Q, Li X, Liu D. High-precision motion control method and practice for autonomous driving in complex off-road environments. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV); 2016 Jun 19– 22; Gothenburg, Sweden; 2016. p. 767–73. link1
[21] Ruan Y, Chen H, Li J. Longitudinal planning and control method for autonomous vehicles based on a new potential field model. SAE technical paper. Washington, DC: SAE International; 2017. No: 2017-01-1955.
[22] González D, Pérez J, Milanés V, Nashashibi F. A review of motion planning techniques for automated vehicles. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2016;17 (4):1135–45. link1
[23] Spielberg NA, Brown M, Kapania NR, Kegelman JC, Gerdes JC. Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving. Sci Robot 2019;4 (28):eaaw1975. link1
[24] Mohanan MG, Salgoankar A. A survey of robotic motion planning in dynamic environments. Robot Auton Syst 2018;100:171–85. link1
[25] Heaven D. Why deep-learning AIs are so easy to fool. Nature 2019;574 (7777):163–6. link1
[26] Chiang HTL, HomChaudhuri B, Smith L, Tapia L. Safety, challenges, and performance of motion planners in dynamic environments. In: Amato NM, Hager G, Thomas S, Torres-Torriti M, editors. Robotics research. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 793–808. link1
[27] Chen G, Cao H, Conradt J, Tang H, Rohrbein F, Knoll A. Event-based neuromorphic vision for autonomous driving: a paradigm shift for bioinspired visual sensing and perception. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2020;37 (4):34–49. link1
[28] Behere S, Torngren M. A functional architecture for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Automotive Software Architecture (WASA); 2015 May 4–8; Montreal, QC, Canada; 2015. link1
[29] Prakash R, Prakash O, Prakash S, Abhishek P, Gandotra S. Global workspace model of consciousness and its electromagnetic correlates. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2008;11(3):146–53. link1
[30] Oizumi M, Albantakis L, Tononi G. From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10(5):e1003588. link1
[31] Tsien H. [On systems engineering]. Changsha: Hunan Science and Technology Press; 1988. Chinese.
[32] Zhu SC. Towards general artificial intelligence: from big data to big task. In: Proceedings of 2019 BAAI; 2019 Oct 31–Nov 1; Beijing: China National Convention Center; 2019.
[33] Zhu M, Wang X, Wang Y. Human-like autonomous car-following model with deep reinforcement learning. Transp Res Part C 2018;97:348–68. link1
[34] Wang J, Wu J, Zheng X, Ni D, Li K. Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system. Transp Res Part C 2016;72: 306–24. link1
[35] Aven T. A risk concept applicable for both probabilistic and non-probabilistic perspectives. Saf Sci 2011;49(8–9):1080–6. link1
[36] Wang J, Huang H, Li Y, Zhou H, Liu J, Xu Q. Driving risk assessment based on naturalistic driving study and driver attitude questionnaire analysis. Accid Anal Prev 2020;145:105680. link1
[37] Siburg KF. The principle of least action in geometry and dynamics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2004. link1
[38] Gururajan MP. The lazy universe: an introduction to the principle of least action, by J. Coopersmith. Contemp Phys 2018;59(1):95–6. link1
[39] Zheng X, Huang H, Wang J, Xu Q. Behavioral decision-making model based on driving risk assessment for intelligent vehicle development. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 2019;36(7):820–37. link1
[40] Huang H, Zheng X, Yang Y, Liu J, Liu W, Wang J. An integrated architecture for intelligence evaluation of automated vehicles. Accid Anal Prev 2020;145:105681. link1
京公网安备 11010502051620号
