Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:safeav:maps:validation [2026/03/31 09:48] – [Localization Validation] airi
+++ en:safeav:maps:validation [2026/03/31 10:14] (current) – [Assessment] airi
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 A two-stage workflow balances coverage and realism. First, use LF tools (e.g., planner-in-the-loop with simplified sensors and traffic) to sweep large grids of logical scenarios and identify risky regions in parameter space (relative speed, initial gap, occlusion level). Then, promote the most informative concrete scenarios to HF simulation with photorealistic sensors for end-to-end validation of perception and localization interactions. Where appropriate, a small, curated set of scenarios is carried to closed-track trials. Success criteria are consistent across all stages, and post-run analyses attribute failures to perception, localization, prediction, or planning so fixes are targeted rather than generic.
+====== Summary ======
+The chapter develops a comprehensive view of perception, mapping, and localization as the foundation of autonomous systems, emphasizing how modern autonomy builds on both historical automation (e.g., autopilots across domains) and recent advances in AI. It explains how perception converts raw sensor data—across cameras, LiDAR, radar, and acoustic systems—into structured understanding through object detection, sensor fusion, and scene interpretation. A key theme is that no single sensor is sufficient; instead, robust autonomy depends on multi-modal sensor fusion, probabilistic estimation, and careful calibration to manage uncertainty. The chapter also highlights the transformative role of AI, particularly deep learning, in enabling scalable perception and scene understanding, while noting that these methods introduce new challenges related to data dependence, generalization, and interpretability.
+A second major focus is on sources of instability and validation, where the chapter connects environmental effects (weather, electromagnetic interference), infrastructure constraints, and semiconductor economics to system-level performance. It underscores that validation must be grounded in the operational design domain (ODD) and cannot rely solely on physical testing, requiring a combination of simulation, hardware-in-the-loop, and scenario-based methods. The introduction of AI further complicates verification and validation because of its probabilistic, non-deterministic nature, challenging traditional assurance techniques. As a result, safety approaches across domains are evolving toward lifecycle-based assurance, incorporating data governance, simulation-driven testing, and continuous monitoring. The chapter concludes with a structured validation framework that links perception, mapping, and localization performance to system-level safety metrics, emphasizing reproducibility, coverage, and traceability in building a credible safety case.
+====== Assessment ======
+^ # ^ Project Title ^ Description ^ Learning Objectives ^
+| 1 | Multi-Sensor Perception Benchmarking | Build a perception pipeline using at least two sensor modalities (e.g., camera + LiDAR or radar). Evaluate object detection performance under varying conditions (lighting, weather, occlusion) using real or simulated datasets. | Understand strengths/limitations of different sensors. Apply sensor fusion concepts. Evaluate detection metrics (precision/recall, distance sensitivity). Analyze environmental impacts on perception. |
+| 2 | ODD-Driven Scenario Generation & Validation Study | Define an Operational Design Domain (ODD) for an autonomous system (e.g., urban driving, coastal navigation). Generate a set of test scenarios (including edge cases) and validate system performance using simulation tools. | Define and scope an ODD. Develop scenario-based testing strategies. Understand coverage and edge-case generation. Link scenarios to safety outcomes. |
+| 3 | Sensor Failure and Degradation Analysis | Simulate sensor failures (e.g., camera blackout, GNSS loss, radar noise) and analyze system-level impact on perception, localization, and safety metrics (e.g., time-to-collision). | Understand failure modes across sensor types. Evaluate system robustness and redundancy. Apply fault injection techniques. Connect sensor degradation to safety risks. |
+| 4 | AI vs Conventional Algorithm Validation Study | Compare a traditional perception algorithm (e.g., rule-based or classical ML) with a deep learning model on the same dataset. Analyze differences in performance, interpretability, and validation challenges. | Distinguish deterministic vs probabilistic systems. Understand validation challenges of AI/ML. Evaluate explainability and traceability. Assess implications for safety certification. |
+| 5 | End-to-End V&V Framework Design (Digital Twin) | Design a validation framework for perception, mapping, and localization using simulation (digital twin). Include KPIs, test conditions (e.g., ISO 26262, SOTIF), simulations, and linkage to safety standards. | Design system-level V&V strategies. Define measurable KPIs for autonomy. Understand simulation and digital twin roles. Connect numerical validation to safety standards. |

en/safeav/maps/validation.1774939691.txt.gz · Last modified: 2026/03/31 09:48 by airi