Cited by 65Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFault Detection and Control SystemsEngineering and Test Systems

Fault Detection, Isolation, Identification and Recovery (FDIIR) Methods for Automotive Perception Sensors Including a Detailed Literature Survey for Lidar

Open access
Goelles, Thomas, Schlager, Birgit, Muckenhuber, Stefan·2020·Sensors

Abstract

Perception sensors such as camera, radar, and lidar have gained considerable popularity in the automotive industry in recent years. In order to reach the next step towards automated driving it is necessary to implement fault diagnosis systems together with suitable mitigation solutions in automotive perception sensors. This is a crucial prerequisite, since the quality of an automated driving function strongly depends on the reliability of the perception data, especially under adverse conditions. This publication presents a systematic review on faults and suitable detection and recovery methods for automotive perception sensors and suggests a corresponding classification schema. A systematic literature analysis has been performed with focus on lidar in order to review the state-of-the-art and identify promising research opportunities. Faults related to adverse weather conditions have been studied the most, but often without providing suitable recovery methods. Issues related to sensor attachment and mechanical damage of the sensor cover were studied very little and provide opportunities for future research. Algorithms, which use the data stream of a single sensor, proofed to be a viable solution for both fault detection and recovery.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s20133662

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

14 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [33]James J.K. Puhlfürst G. Golyanik V. Stricker D. Classification of LIDAR Sensor Contaminations with Deep Neural Networks Proceedings of the Computer Science in Cars Symposium (CSCS) 2018 Munich, Germany 13–14 September 2018 8 10.1145/3273946.3273952 · DOI
  2. [78]Ijaz M. Ghassemlooy Z. Minh H.L. Rajbhandari S. Perez J. Analysis of Fog and Smoke Attenuation in a Free Space Optical Communication Link Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Optical Wireless Communications (IWOW) Pisa, Italy 22 October 2012 1 3
  3. [85]Michaud S. Lalonde J.F. Giguere P. Towards Characterizing the Behavior of LiDARs in Snowy Conditions Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Planning, Perception and Navigation for Intelligent Vehicles Hamburg, Germany 28 September 2015
  4. [88]McKnight D. Miles R. Impact of reduced visibility conditions on laser based DP sensors Proceedings of the Dynamic Positioning Conference Houston, TX, USA 14–15 October 2014
  5. [97]Song J. Fry G. Wu C. Parmer G. CAML: Machine Learning-based Predictable, System-Level Anomaly Detection Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Security and Dependability of Critical Embedded Real-Time Systems, in Conjunction with IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium Porto, Portugal 29 November 2016
  6. [99]Leslar M. Wang J. Hu B. A Comparison of Two New Methods of Outlier Detection for Mobile Terrestrial Lidar Data Proc. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 2010 38 78 84

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goelles, T., Schlager, B., & Muckenhuber, S.
Affiliations
Virtual Vehicle Research GmbH (Austria) (AT)
Corresponding author
Goelles, Thomas
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-06-30
Volume
20
Issue
13
Pages
3662
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3040181730
Cited by
63
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (COMET K2)
  • Steirische Wirtschaftsförderungsgesellschaft
  • Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung
  • Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Engineering and Test Systems
Keywords
fault detection and isolation, fault identification, fault recovery, LiDAR, autonomous driving, sensor reliability, severe weather, mechanical damage, sensor data streams, camera, radar

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