Differences

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

--- en:safeav:softsys:vaicomp [2026/04/06 13:04] – airi
+++ en:safeav:softsys:vaicomp [2026/04/07 10:00] (current) – raivo.sell
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Overall, it is a very ambitious endeavor and there are significant challenges to building this specification of a reasonable driver. First, the idea of a “reasonable” driver is not even well encoded on the human side. Rather, this definition of “reasonableness” is built over a long history of legal distillation, and of course, the human standard is built on the understanding of humans by other humans.  Second, the complexity of such a standard would be very high and it is not clear if it is doable.  Finally, it may take quite a while of legal distillation to reach some level of closure on a human like an “AI-Driver.”
 Currently, the state-of-art for specification is relatively poor for both ADAS and AV. ADAS systems, which are widely proliferated, have massive divergences in behavior and completeness. When a customer buys ADAS, it is not entirely clear what they are getting. Tests by industry groups such as AAA, consumer reports, and IIHS have shown the significant shortcomings of existing solutions [20]. In 2024, IIHS introduced a ratings program to evaluate the safeguards of partial driving automation systems. Out of 14 systems tested, only one received an acceptable rating, highlighting the need for improved measures to prevent misuse and ensure driver engagement [21]. Today, there is only one non process oriented regulation in the marketplace, and this is the NHTSA regulations around AEB [22].
-**Summary:**
-This chapter traces the evolution of software from programmable hardware foundations to a dominant force in modern computing systems. Early advances in hardware programmability—through configuration, programmable logic (e.g., FPGAs), and stored-program processors—enabled a separation between physical implementation and functional behavior. The introduction of stable computer architectures (notably IBM System/360) and operating systems created enduring abstractions that allowed software portability, scalability, and rapid innovation. Over time, networking and open-source ecosystems further accelerated the growth of information technology, establishing software as the central driver of capability across computing platforms.
-As software methods entered cyber-physical systems (CPS)—including ground, airborne, marine, and space domains—they followed a distinct trajectory shaped by real-time constraints, safety requirements, and physical interaction. Initially introduced to enhance control and diagnostics, software evolved into the core coordinating layer for sensing, decision-making, and actuation, enabling autonomy. This transition was supported by the emergence of real-time operating systems (RTOSes), middleware, and layered software architectures that ensured deterministic behavior and modularity. Across all domains, systems evolved from isolated, hardware-centric designs to distributed, software-intensive platforms, with increasing reliance on standardized frameworks and communication protocols.
-The chapter further highlights how software has transformed product development, supply chains, and validation practices. Cyber-physical systems are increasingly influenced by the faster-moving IT ecosystem, adopting open-source components, layered stacks, and continuous update models (e.g., software-defined vehicles). At the same time, safety standards (e.g., ISO 26262, DO-178C) and rigorous verification methods—such as hardware/software co-simulation (MIL, SIL, HIL)—have evolved to address the risks of software-driven behavior. Modern software supply chains are complex, incorporating third-party and open-source dependencies, requiring strong configuration management, traceability, and cybersecurity practices. Overall, the chapter emphasizes a fundamental shift: engineered systems are no longer hardware products with embedded software, but increasingly software platforms embodied in hardware.
-Assessment:
-^ # ^ Assessment Title ^ Description (Project / Report) ^ Learning Objectives ^
-| 1 | Evolution of Programmable Systems | Write a report tracing the evolution from fixed-function hardware to programmable systems (configuration, FPGA, microprocessors) and the abstraction of software as an abstraction. Include historical milestones and examples. | Understand the transition from hardware-centric to software-defined systems. Explain key programming paradigms (configuration, assembly, high-level programming). Analyze the role of abstraction architecture (e.g., system stack). |
-| 2 | Cyber-Physical Software Stack Analysis | Develop a structured report analyzing a real-world CPS (e.g., automotive ADAS, UAV, or spacecraft). Map its software stack (HAL, RTOS, middleware, applications) and explain how each layer contributes to overall system functionality. | Identify layers in CPS software architectures. Explain the role of RTOS, middleware, and HAL. Analyze real-time and safety constraints in system design. |
-| 3 | IT vs CPS Supply Chain Comparison Study | Produce a comparative analysis of hardware and software supply chains in IT vs CPS, with focus on lifecycle management, dependencies, and update strategies. Include risks and trade-offs. | Compare IT and CPS development ecosystems. Evaluate the impact of “innovation cycles” in CPS (cost, obsolescence, certification). Assess risks (safety, cybersecurity) and benefits (flexibility, innovation). |
-| 4 | Safety Verification and Validation Framework | Write a report comparing software validation approaches in IT and CPS, focusing on simulation/emulation (MIL, SIL, HIL) and safety standards (e.g., ISO 26262, DO-178C). Include a case study. | Understand verification vs validation in different domains. Explain simulation/emulation methods in CPS. Analyze how safety standards shape software development. |
-| 5 | Software-Defined System Proposal | Develop a conceptual design for a “software-defined” system (e.g., vehicle, drone, or marine system). Describe architecture, update model (OTA), software stack, and lifecycle management approach. | Apply concepts of software-defined systems. Design layered, modular architectures. Integrate lifecycle, update, and maintainability considerations. |
-^ Stack Framework ^ Type ^ Core Covered Layers ^ Key Technologies ^ Domain Focus ^ Notes / Differentiation ^
-| ROS 2 | Open-source middleware stack | Middleware, application | DDS, nodes, topics, Gazebo, RViz | Robotics, AV | De facto R&D standard; highly modular |
-| AUTOSAR Adaptive | Automotive software platform | OS, middleware, apps | POSIX OS, SOME/IP, service-oriented | Automotive (ADAS/AV) | Designed for ISO 26262 + OTA updates |
-| AUTOSAR Classic Platform | Embedded real-time stack | HAL, RTOS, basic software | OSEK or RTOS, CAN, ECU abstraction | Automotive ECUs | Deterministic, safety-certified |
-| Apollo | Full autonomy stack | Full stack (perception → control) | Cyber RT, AI models, HD maps | Autonomous driving (L2–L4) | One of the most complete open AV stacks |
-| Autoware | Open AV stack | Full autonomy pipeline | ROS 2, perception, planning modules | Automotive, robotics | Strong academic + industry ecosystem |
-| NVIDIA DRIVE OS | Integrated platform | OS, middleware, AI runtime | CUDA, TensorRT, DriveWorks | Automotive autonomy | Tight HW/SW co-design with GPUs |
-| QNX Neutrino | RTOS middleware | OS, safety layer | POSIX RTOS, microkernel | Automotive, industrial | Strong certification (ASIL-D) |
-| VxWorks | RTOS | OS, middleware | Deterministic RTOS, ARINC653 | Aerospace, defense | Widely used in safety-critical systems |
-| PX4 Autopilot | UAV autonomy stack | Control, middleware, perception | MAVLink, EKF, control loops | UAV / drones | Industry standard for drones |
-| ArduPilot | UAV autonomy stack | Control + navigation | Mission planning, sensor fusion | UAV, marine robotics | Broad vehicle support (air/land/sea) |
-| MOOS-IvP | Marine autonomy stack | Middleware | Behavior-based robotics | Marine robotics | Optimized for low bandwidth environments |
-| DDS (Data Distribution Service) | Middleware standard | Communication layer | QoS messaging, pub-sub | Cross-domain CPS | Backbone of ROS 2 and many systems |
-| AWS RoboMaker | Cloud robotics stack | Cloud, simulation | DevOps, ROS integration | Robotics, AV | Enables CI/CD + simulation workflows |
-| Microsoft AirSim | Simulation stack | Simulation layer | Unreal Engine, physics models | UAV, AV | High-fidelity perception simulation |
-| CARLA | Simulation stack | Simulation layer | OpenDRIVE, sensors, physics | Automotive | Widely used for AV validation |
-| Gazebo | Simulation stack | Simulation integration | Physics engine, ROS integration | Robotics | Standard for ROS-based systems |

en/safeav/softsys/vaicomp.txt · Last modified: 2026/04/07 10:00 by raivo.sell