3 ms·

Kalra and Paddock's analysis is correct as far as it goes, but it's easy to misuse to claim that we couldn't feasibly demonstrate an autonomous vehicle is accep

by rgmerk 5y ago

Kalra and Paddock's analysis is correct as far as it goes, but it's easy to misuse to claim that we couldn't feasibly demonstrate an autonomous vehicle is acceptably safe. It never got accepted for publication because the reviewers didn't think it was significant enough, but I wrote a paper presenting an alternative way to analyse autonomous vehicle reliability data (you'll have to take my word for it, but the reviewers didn't quibble about the results presented, just whether it was important): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08901.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08901.pdf The major technical contribution was demonstrating that a class of mathematical models called software reliability growth models are a reasonable way to estimate the "anomalous behaviour" rates of an AV system as bugs are found and fixed. My second point was that using fatal accidents as a way to measure safety is not necessary; you can use more common events such as non-fatal accidents, or in the case of AV systems in development, even the number of occasions the safety driver overrode the automatic control.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oldgradstudent 5y ago
I am surprised a scholar would take these reports without a massive grain of salt. > In this study, all disengagement events listed in the company reports were included in the analysis. It is likely that in some cases, disengagements occurred as a precaution by the safety driver, and no adverse event would have resulted if the AV continued in autonomous mode. Take a look at [1]. It says that: > Waymo has developed a robust process to collect, analyze and evaluate disengages for this report. We set disengagement thresholds conservatively for our public road testing. The vast majority of disengagements are not related to safety. Our test drivers routinely transition into and out of autonomous mode many times throughout the day, and the self-driving vehicle’s computer hands over control to the driver in many situations that do not involve a failure of the autonomous technology and do not require an immediate takeover of control by the driver. > To help evaluate the safety significance of disengagements, Waymo employs a powerful simulator program. In Waymo’s simulation, our team can “replay” each incident and predict the behavior of our self-driving car if the driver had not taken control of it, as well as the behavior and positions of other road users in the vicinity (such as pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles). Our engineers use this data to refine and improve the software to ensure the self-driving car performs safely. So effectively, Waymo has secret process, which may change all the time, to decide which disengagements to report and which not to report. There is no way to tell whether the car would have slightly bumped into another car, or killed a child if not disengaged. Their reports to the DMV do not constitute data, they are PR. Not trying to single out Waymo, they all do that. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190531071448/https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/42aff875-7ab1-4115-a72a-97f6f24b23cc/Waymofull.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID= https://web.archive.org/web/20190531071448/https://www.dmv.c...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by rgmerk 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

oldgradstudent 5y ago

I am surprised a scholar would take these reports without a massive grain of salt. > In this study, all disengagement events listed in the company reports were included in the analysis. It is likely that in some cases, disengagements occurred as a precaution by the safety driver, and no adverse event would have resulted if the AV continued in autonomous mode. Take a look at [1]. It says that: > Waymo has developed a robust process to collect, analyze and evaluate disengages for this report. We set disengagement thresholds conservatively for our public road testing. The vast majority of disengagements are not related to safety. Our test drivers routinely transition into and out of autonomous mode many times throughout the day, and the self-driving vehicle’s computer hands over control to the driver in many situations that do not involve a failure of the autonomous technology and do not require an immediate takeover of control by the driver. > To help evaluate the safety significance of disengagements, Waymo employs a powerful simulator program. In Waymo’s simulation, our team can “replay” each incident and predict the behavior of our self-driving car if the driver had not taken control of it, as well as the behavior and positions of other road users in the vicinity (such as pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles). Our engineers use this data to refine and improve the software to ensure the self-driving car performs safely. So effectively, Waymo has secret process, which may change all the time, to decide which disengagements to report and which not to report. There is no way to tell whether the car would have slightly bumped into another car, or killed a child if not disengaged. Their reports to the DMV do not constitute data, they are PR. Not trying to single out Waymo, they all do that. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190531071448/https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/42aff875-7ab1-4115-a72a-97f6f24b23cc/Waymofull.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID= https://web.archive.org/web/20190531071448/https://www.dmv.c...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]