skip to main content
10.1145/3615366.3625077acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesladcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Systematic Situation Coverage versus Random Situation Coverage for Safety Testing in an Autonomous Car Simulation

Published:17 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Autonomous vehicles (AV) have the potential to improve road transport, but faults in the autonomous driving software can result in serious accidents. To assess the safety of AV driving software, we need to consider the wide variety and diversity of situations that it may encounter. Explicit situation coverage has previously been presented, but its usefulness has received a little empirical scrutiny. In this study, we evaluate a situation coverage based safety testing approach by comparing the performance of random and situation coverage-based test generation in terms of its ability to detect seeded faults in our ego AV at a road intersection under diverse environmental conditions. Our results suggest that this implementation of situation coverage, at least, does not provide an advantage over random generation.

References

  1. [1] [n. d.]. https://cocodataset.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rob Alexander, Heather Rebecca Hawkins, and Andrew John Rae. 2015. Situation coverage–a coverage criterion for testing autonomous robots. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Paul Ammann and Jeff Offutt. 2016. Introduction to software testing. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anneliese Andrews, Mahmoud Abdelgawad, and Ahmed Gario. 2015. Active World Model for Testing Autonomous Systems Using CEFSM.. In MoDeVVa@ MoDELS. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anneliese Andrews, Mahmoud Abdelgawad, and Ahmed Gario. 2015. Towards world model-based test generation in autonomous systems. In 2015 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). IEEE, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anneliese Andrews, Mahmoud Abdelgawad, and Ahmed Gario. 2016. World model for testing autonomous systems using petri nets. In 2016 IEEE 17th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE). IEEE, 65–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Aren A Babikian. 2020. Automated generation of test scenario models for the system-level safety assurance of autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings. 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Carla-Simulator. [n. d.]. https://github.com/carla-simulator/scenario_runnerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel J Fagnant and Kara Kockelman. 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 77 (2015), 167–181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Francesca M Favarò, Nazanin Nader, Sky O Eurich, Michelle Tripp, and Naresh Varadaraju. 2017. Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in California. PLoS one 12, 9 (2017), e0184952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Heather Hawkins and Rob Alexander. 2019. Situation Coverage Testing for a Simulated Autonomous Car–an Initial Case Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06501 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. 2017. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonathan Huang, Vivek Rathod, Chen Sun, Menglong Zhu, Anoop Korattikara, Alireza Fathi, Ian Fischer, Zbigniew Wojna, Yang Song, Sergio Guadarrama, 2017. Speed/accuracy trade-offs for modern convolutional object detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 7310–7311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. H. Kinsley. 2017. Object detection with tensorflow - self driving cars p.17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAXulqzn5PsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Philip Koopman and Michael Wagner. 2017. Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An Interdisciplinary Challenge. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine 9, 1 (2017), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2016.2583491Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Benjamin Lesage and Rob Alexander. 2021. SASSI: safety analysis using simulation-based situation coverage for cobot systems. In Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 40th International Conference, SAFECOMP 2021, York, UK, September 8–10, 2021, Proceedings 40. Springer, 195–209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Greig Mordue, Anders Yeung, and Fan Wu. 2020. The looming challenges of regulating high level autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part A: policy and practice 132 (2020), 174–187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Zaid Tahir and Rob Alexander. 2022. Intersection focused Situation Coverage-based Verification and Validation Framework for Autonomous Vehicles Implemented in CARLA. In Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems: 8th International Conference, MESAS 2021, Virtual Event, October 13–14, 2021, Revised Selected Papers. Springer, 191–212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Simon Ulbrich, Till Menzel, Andreas Reschka, Fabian Schuldt, and Markus Maurer. 2015. Defining and substantiating the terms scene, situation, and scenario for automated driving. In 2015 IEEE 18th international conference on intelligent transportation systems. IEEE, 982–988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Oliver Zendel, Wolfgang Herzner, and Markus Murschitz. 2013. Vitro-model based vision testing for robustness. In IEEE ISR 2013. IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Systematic Situation Coverage versus Random Situation Coverage for Safety Testing in an Autonomous Car Simulation

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            LADC '23: Proceedings of the 12th Latin-American Symposium on Dependable and Secure Computing
            October 2023
            242 pages
            ISBN:9798400708442
            DOI:10.1145/3615366

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 17 October 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)56
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format