[SystemSafety] Fwd: Re: How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?

From: Philip Koopman < >
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:58:17 -0700

I presented a paper on exactly this set of related problems at the SAE World Congress last week. Validating machine learning is for sure a tough problem. So is deciding how ISO 26262 fits in. And quality of the training data. And some other problems besides. Below is abstract and pointer to the paper and presentation slides. Constructive feedback welcome for follow-on work we are doing, although likely I will reply individually rather than to the list. (Note that this paper was camera ready before the RAND report was public. Several folks have been thinking about this topic for quite a while and just now are the results becoming public.)

http://betterembsw.blogspot.com/2016/04/challenges-in-autonomous-vehicle.html

Challenges in Autonomous Vehicle Testing and Validation

        Philip Koopman & Michael Wagner
        Carnegie Mellon University; Edge Case Research LLC
        SAE World Congress, April 14, 2016

Abstract:
Software testing is all too often simply a bug hunt rather than a well considered exercise in ensuring quality. A more methodical approach than a simple cycle of system-level test-fail-patch-test will be required to deploy safe autonomous vehicles at scale. The ISO 26262 development V process sets up a framework that ties each type of testing to a corresponding design or requirement document, but presents challenges when adapted to deal with the sorts of novel testing problems that face autonomous vehicles. This paper identifies five major challenge areas in testing according to the V model for autonomous vehicles: driver out of the loop, complex requirements, non-deterministic algorithms, inductive learning algorithms, and fail operational systems. General solution approaches that seem promising across these different challenge areas include: phased deployment using successively relaxed operational scenarios, use of a monitor/actuator pair architecture to separate the most complex autonomy functions from simpler safety functions, and fault injection as a way to perform more efficient edge case testing. While significant challenges remain in safety-certifying the type of algorithms that provide high-level autonomy themselves, it seems within reach to instead architect the system and its accompanying design process to be able to employ existing software safety approaches.

Cheers,
-- Phil

-- 
Phil Koopman -- koopman_at_xxxxxx


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     Re: [SystemSafety] How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take
to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?
Date:     Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:10:56 +0100


Hi Matthew,



   >Â  Really if ever there was a solid economic argument for deploying
industrial scale formal method and proofs this would be it.



To a machine learning system? How would you provide a formal proof that
such a system had learnt the right response for all possible
circumstances? I can conceive that it could be applied to the algorithms
for learning but not to the learning itself. That is, you could show
that the learning system does what it was specified to do, assuming that
the specification is correct; but not that it was taught correctly or
completely. For that I suspect that you will need some sort of
statistical approach. How to do that is off course a major problem.



And Hi Martyn




> Recertification after software change. Or do we just accept the
huge attack surface that a fleet of AVs presents? For “recertification” Goggle’s approach to date seems to be to rerun all the driving done so far via simulation… I’m not sure what your implying with the comment on attack surfaces. Some far, as far as I can tell aside from updates there is not vehicle to vehicle communications. GPS is probably vulnerable to spoofing and jamming which could be an issue but one would hope that had been accounted for as it would count as a sensor failure…
> The way in which AVs could change the safety of the total road
transport system. Is anyone studying total accidents rather than AV accidents? Yes, lots and lots of people mostly government bodies that that collect the accident data in the first place and they tend to commission detailed studies from outside organization (that don’t quite answer the question your interested in). In addition to that there are a few manufacture/academic partnerships that study major road accidents in forensic detail alongside police (I know of one in Germany and one in the UK) which is intended to address many of the limitations to police investigations. In addition some of the big auto manufactures have their own departments e.g. VW have their own statistics department looking at this. In addition there is a large academic community concerned examining traffic accidents. As an aside, some time ago we were discussing wheels fall off of cars. I attempted to track down an answer to this from the online traffic stats as there is a field for it in the STATS19 form (filled out by police). However with some digging via email and a couple of phone calls to the Dept. of Transport it stopped dead with no answer because it’s a write-in field on the form and the data isn’t transferred to any of the computer systems. If it’s not on the computer they don’t want to know. Cheers. _______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List
Received on Sat Apr 23 2016 - 00:58:43 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 18 2019 - 23:17:08 CEST