Failure Mode Investigation to Enable LiDAR Health Monitoring for Automotive Application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors are critical components of the perception system and play a significant role in enabling fully autonomous driving. Given that LiDARs have a higher failure rate than other sensors, such as camera and radar, it is crucial to monitor the health of this component to increasing the availability of autonomous driving features. Such a health monitoring system can additionally provide cost-effective maintenance for retail and fleet, improve the service experience of retail customers, and ensure the fidelity of the data produced by the LiDAR for engineering development. Since LiDAR is a relatively new technology, there is currently limited work in the area of LiDAR health monitoring. The failure modes and degradation behavior of these components have not been thoroughly studied in the literature for automotive applications. Therefore, this paper reviews LiDAR external and internal failure modes and their impacts on the perception performance. The external failure modes are categorized into multiple fault classes such as sensor blockage due to a layer of debris on the sensor, mechanical damage to the sensor cover, and mounting issues. The internal faults corresponding to LiDAR subcomponents such as transmitter, receiver or scanning mechanism, are explored for these LiDAR types: mechanical spinning, flash LiDAR, Micro-opto-electromechanical mirror LiDAR, and micromotion technology LiDAR. The failure modes of each subcomponent are also investigated to determine if they can be categorized as slow degradation or sudden failure. It is concluded that mechanical spinning LiDARs are expected to have higher failure rates than solid-state LiDARs. Both internal and external LiDAR failure modes can lead to reduced accuracy and reliability in detecting objects and obstacles, compromising the safety of autonomous driving systems, and increasing the possibility of collisions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it