Markov Chain-based Reliability Analysis for Automotive Fail-Operational Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">A main challenge when developing next generation architectures for automated driving ECUs is to guarantee reliable functionality. Today’s fail safe systems will not be able to handle electronic failures due to the missing “mechanical” fallback or the intervening driver. This means, fail operational based on redundancy is an essential part for improving the functional safety, especially in safety-related braking and steering systems. The 2-out-of-2 Diagnostic Fail Safe (2oo2DFS) system is a promising approach to realize redundancy with manageable costs. In this contribution, we evaluate the reliability of this concept for a symmetric and an asymmetric Electronic Power Steering (EPS) ECU. For this, we use a Markov chain model as a typical method for analyzing the reliability and Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) in majority redundancy approaches. As a basis, the failure rates of the used components and the microcontroller are considered. The comparison to a non-redundant system shows a significantly higher reliability and MTTF of the redundant approaches.</div></div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".