Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36262462›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

A review on AI Safety in highly automated driving.

Moritz Wäschle, Florian Thaler, Axel Berres, Florian Pölzlbauer, Albert Albers

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Moritz WäschleIPEK-Institute of Product Engineering, ASE-Advanced Systems Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Florian ThalerVirtual Vehicle Research GmbH, Graz, Austria.
Axel BerresGerman Aerospace Center, Cologne, Germany.
Florian PölzlbauerVirtual Vehicle Research GmbH, Graz, Austria.
Albert AlbersIPEK-Institute of Product Engineering, ASE-Advanced Systems Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remarkable progress in the fields of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) has led to an increased number of applications of (data-driven) AI systems for the partial or complete control of safety-critical systems. Recently, ML solutions have been particularly popular. Such approaches are often met with concerns regarding their correct and safe execution, which is often caused by missing knowledge or intransparency of their exact functionality. The investigation and derivation of methods for the safety assessment of AI systems are thus of great importance. Among others, these issues are addressed in the field of AI Safety. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of this field by means of a systematic literature review with special focus on the area of highly automated driving, as well as to present a selection of approaches and methods for the safety assessment of AI systems. Particularly, validation, verification, and testing are considered in light of this context. In the review process, two distinguished classes of approaches have been identified: On the one hand established methods, either referring to already published standards or well-established concepts from multiple research areas outside ML and AI. On the other hand newly developed approaches, including methods tailored to the scope of ML and AI which gained importance only in recent years.

Indexed as

adversarial robustnessAI Safetyhighly automated drivingsystematic literature reviewvalue alignment

Identifiers

PMID36262462
PMCPMC9574258

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.