PreprintCited by 14Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyTraffic and Road Safety

Is it Safe to Drive? An Overview of Factors, Challenges, and Datasets for Driveability Assessment in Autonomous Driving

Open access
Guo, Junyao, Kurup, Unmesh, Shah, Mohak·2018·arXiv

Abstract

With recent advances in learning algorithms and hardware development, autonomous cars have shown promise when operating in structured environments under good driving conditions. However, for complex, cluttered and unseen environments with high uncertainty, autonomous driving systems still frequently demonstrate erroneous or unexpected behaviors, that could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Autonomous vehicles should ideally adapt to driving conditions; while this can be achieved through multiple routes, it would be beneficial as a first step to be able to characterize Driveability in some quantified form. To this end, this paper aims to create a framework for investigating different factors that can impact driveability. Also, one of the main mechanisms to adapt autonomous driving systems to any driving condition is to be able to learn and generalize from representative scenarios. The machine learning algorithms that currently do so learn predominantly in a supervised manner and consequently need sufficient data for robust and efficient learning. Therefore, we also perform a comparative overview of 45 public driving datasets that enable learning and publish this dataset index at https://sites.google.com/view/driveability-survey-datasets. Specifically, we categorize the datasets according to use cases, and highlight the datasets that capture complicated and hazardous driving conditions which can be better used for training robust driving models. Furthermore, by discussions of what driving scenarios are not covered by existing public datasets and what driveability factors need more investigation and data acquisition, this paper aims to encourage both targeted dataset collection and the proposal of novel driveability metrics that enhance the robustness of autonomous cars in adverse environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.11277

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • More research is required on generalizing to 'complex, cluttered and unseen environments'.

    “More research is required on generalizing to 'complex, cluttered and unseen environments' [36].”

    From nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving (2020) · cites this paper as [36]

  • While collecting data, the paper uses a Monte Carlo Localization scheme from lidar and odometry information.

    “While collecting data, we use a Monte Carlo Localization scheme from lidar and odometry information [18].”

    From nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, J., Kurup, U., & Shah, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2903414631
Cited by
14
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
Keywords
autonomous driving, driving data, driving scenarios, dataset collection

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