Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831169›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2025

An autonomous vehicles' test case extraction method: Example of vehicle-to-pedestrian scenarios.

Zhengping Tan, Qian Wang, Wenhao Hu, Pingfei Li, Liangliang Shi, Hao Feng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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

6 authors.

Zhengping TanSchool of Automobile &Transportation, Xihua University, Chengdu, 610039, China.
Qian WangSchool of Automobile &Transportation, Xihua University, Chengdu, 610039, China.
Wenhao HuState Administration for Market Regulation Defective Product Recall Technical Center (DPRC), Beijing, 100101, China.
Pingfei LiSchool of Automobile &Transportation, Xihua University, Chengdu, 610039, China.
Liangliang ShiChina Automotive Engineering Research Institute, Chongqing, 401122, China.
Hao FengKey Lab of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, China (Academy of Forensic Science), Shanghai, 200063, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing autonomous vehicles (AVs) in hazardous scenarios is a crucial technical approach to ensure their safety. A key aspect of this process is the generation of hazard scenarios. In general, such scenarios are generated through cluster analysis of traffic accident data. However, this approach may not fully capture the criticality of the generated scenarios, as it tends to emphasize the statistical characteristics of the data rather than its real-world applicability. This paper proposes a novel method to enhance scenario adaptation by integrating quantization weights with a new clustering algorithm. These weights, representing the correlation between scenario elements and the AV system, are calculated using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE). The proposed method is applied to 1044 pedestrian accident cases in China, resulting in the identification of nine categories of typical scenarios and corresponding test schemes for both the perception and decision-making systems of AVs. The results show that the new method increases the proportion of critical scenarios by 17.4 % and 13.6 %, respectively, compared to traditional methods. Overall, the critical scenarios generated in this paper can significantly improve the testing efficiency and safety of AVs.

Indexed as

Autonomous vehiclesClustering algorithmDecision-making systemFuzzy comprehensive evaluationPerception systemTest scenario

Identifiers

PMID39831169
PMCPMC11741950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.