Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35845756›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2022

Miniature Autonomy as Means to Find New Approaches in Reliable Autonomous Driving AI Method Design.

Tim Tiedemann, Luk Schwalb, Markus Kasten, Robin Grotkasten, Stephan Pareigis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tim TiedemannAutoSys Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty TI, University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany.
Luk SchwalbAutoSys Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty TI, University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany.
Markus KastenAutoSys Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty TI, University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany.
Robin GrotkastenAutoSys Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty TI, University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany.
Stephan PareigisAutoSys Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty TI, University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods need to be evaluated thoroughly to ensure reliable behavior. In applications like autonomous driving, a complex environment with an uncountable number of different situations and conditions needs to be handled by a method whose behavior needs to be predictable. To accomplish this, simulations can be used as a first step. However, the physical world behaves differently, as the example of autonomous driving shows. There, erroneous behavior has been found in test drives that was not noticed in simulations. Errors were caused by conditions or situations that were not covered by the simulations (e.g., specific lighting conditions or other vehicle's behavior). However, the problem with real world testing of autonomous driving features is that critical conditions or situations occur very rarely-while the test effort is high. A solution can be the combination of physical world tests and simulations-and miniature vehicles as an intermediate step between both. With model cars (in a sufficiently complex model environment) advantages of both can be combined: (1) low test effort and a repeatable variation of conditions/situations as an advantage like in simulations and (2) (limited) physical world testing with unspecified and potentially unknown properties as an advantage like in real-world tests. Additionally, such physical tests can be carried out in less stable cases like already in the early stages of AI method testing and/or in approaches using online learning. Now, we propose to use a) miniature vehicles at a small scale of 1:87 and b) use sensors and computational power only on the vehicle itself. By this limitation, a further consequence is expected: Here, autonomy methods need to be optimized drastically or even redesigned from scratch. The resulting methods are supposed to be less complex-and, thus, again less error-prone. We call this approach "Miniature Autonomy" and apply it to the road, water, and aerial vehicles. In this article, we briefly describe a small test area we built (3 sqm.), a large test area used alternatively (1,545 sqm.), two last generation autonomous miniature vehicles (one road, one aerial vehicle), and an autonomous driving demo case demonstrating the application.

Indexed as

autonomyevaluationmachine learningminiature autonomyphysical testssimulation

Identifiers

PMID35845756
PMCPMC9283862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.