Minimum Critical Test Scenario Set Selection for Autonomous Vehicles Prior to First Deployment and Public Road Testing
Open accessAbstract
The growing complexity of autonomous vehicle functionalities poses significant challenges for vehicle testing, validation, and regulatory approval. Despite the availability of various testing protocols and standards, a harmonized and widely accepted method specifically targeting the selection of critical test scenarios—especially for safety assessments prior to public road testing—has not yet been developed. This study introduces a systematic methodology for selecting a minimum critical set of test scenarios tailored to an autonomous vehicle’s Operational Design Domain (ODD) and capabilities. Building on existing testing frameworks (e.g., EuroNCAP protocols, ISO standards, UNECE and EU regulations), the proposed method combines a structured questionnaire with a weighted cosine similarity based filtering mechanism to identify relevant scenarios from a robust database of over 1000 test cases. Further refinement using similarity metrics such as Euclidean and Manhattan distances ensures the elimination of redundant test scenarios. Application of the framework to real-world projects demonstrates significant alignment with expert-identified cases, while also identifying overlooked but relevant scenarios. By addressing the need for a structured and efficient scenario selection method, this work supports the advancement of systematic safety assurance for autonomous vehicles and provides a scalable solution for authorities and vehicle testing companies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 2
- Authors
- Toth, B., & Szalay, Z.
- Affiliations
- Department of Automotive Technologies, Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem Rakpart 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary
- Budapest University of Technology and Economics (HU)
- Venue
- Applied Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-06-22
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 7031
- ISSN
- 2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4411607223
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary (KDP-2021)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, operational design domain, safety assessment, public road testing, regulatory approval, weighted cosine similarity, safety assurance, Euro NCAP, ISO standards
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review