An Analysis of Testing Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Driving System refers to a vehicle system where hardware and software are collectively capable of on-road operational and tactical functions and such functions involve the detection, recognition, classification of objects and response to events. Many automotive companies are incorporating automated driving into their current R&D and are transforming their business models. To both conventional and disruptive manufacturers, safety is always one of the top priorities. Appropriate verification and validation procedures are needed and should be followed to mitigate unreliability and hazardousness. Sufficient testing scenario should be considered and planned to simulate and cover functional and non-functional requirements. Disengagement ratio serves as an indicator during performance evaluations because analysing root causes of both technical and non-technical disengagements is pivotal especially during testing strategy planning. Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports and Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), California, USA are collectively used for the purpose of this research. And the analytical result shows there is no clear relationship between mileage and disengagements. Influencing factors are generated and consolidated from the mentioned reports and are proposed in addition to a Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE International) standard. Stakeholders will benefit from the presented rationales and consider the suggestive parameters throughout their developing and testing activities. This paper further recommends testing management for automated driving systems, especially test driver management and test routes planning. And the recommendations are in accordance with the analytical results and feedback from KPMG s Global Automotive Executive Surveys.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".