pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.08491 · v2 · submitted 2024-10-11 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI· cs.SY· eess.SY

Edge Case Detection in Automated Driving: Methods, Challenges and Future Directions

Saeed Rahmani , Sabine Rieder , Erwin de Gelder , Marcel Sonntag , Jorge Lorente Mallada , Sytze Kalisvaart , Vahid Hashemi , Bart van Arem
show 1 more author
Simeon C. Calvert
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 19:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords edge case detectionautomated vehiclesautonomous drivingperception systemstrajectory planningknowledge-driven approachessystematic classificationsafety validation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-level classification organizes edge case detection methods for automated vehicles by subsystem and by underlying methodology.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that no comprehensive survey of edge case detection techniques existed, so it supplies a hierarchical review organized first by automated vehicle modules such as perception and trajectory subsystems and second by the methods and theories behind them. It adds knowledge-driven approaches that use expert domain knowledge to spot cases missing from training data. The review also covers evaluation metrics for performance, deployment cost, and safety impact, then lists open challenges around data quality, interpretability, simulation gaps, and compute limits. If the classification holds, it guides selection of detection techniques for individual subsystems and supports both simulated scenario creation and real-world validation.

Core claim

This survey presents a hierarchical classification of edge case detection and assessment methods structured on two levels: by AV modules including perception and trajectory-related subsystems, and by underlying methodologies and theories, while introducing knowledge-driven approaches that complement data-driven techniques by incorporating expert insights to identify cases absent from training datasets; it further reviews evaluation techniques and metrics and identifies key challenges to enable modular and targeted testing frameworks.

What carries the argument

The two-level hierarchical classification of edge case detection methodologies, first by AV modules (perception and trajectory-related subsystems) and second by methodologies and theories, including the addition of knowledge-driven approaches.

If this is right

  • The classification guides selection of detection methods for specific AV subsystems such as perception or planning.
  • It supports scenario generation in simulation and focused subsystem validation in the real world.
  • Evaluation covers detection performance metrics like precision and recall, practical measures like computational overhead and detection delay, and domain-specific measures like crash rates.
  • Key remaining challenges include data availability and quality, validation and interpretability limits, the sim2real gap, and computational constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The classification could be extended to create standardized testing protocols shared across different automated driving developers.
  • Combining knowledge-driven and data-driven methods might reduce failures on entirely novel scenarios not seen in either expert rules or training sets.
  • The same two-level structure could be tested on edge case detection for other autonomous systems such as drones or industrial robots.

Load-bearing premise

That no prior comprehensive survey of edge case detection techniques exists and that the proposed classification will enable practical modular testing frameworks for specific AV subsystems.

What would settle it

Discovery of multiple earlier comprehensive surveys that already classify edge case detection methods by both AV modules and underlying theories would remove the stated need for this review.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.08491 by Bart van Arem, Erwin de Gelder, Jorge Lorente Mallada, Marcel Sonntag, Sabine Rieder, Saeed Rahmani, Simeon C. Calvert, Sytze Kalisvaart, Vahid Hashemi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Classification of edge case detection methods in this study (The numbers in front of each method indicate the section number where that method is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Steps for knowledge-based edge case identification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Automated vehicles promise to enhance transportation safety and efficiency. However, ensuring their reliability in real-world conditions remains challenging, particularly due to rare and unexpected situations known as edge cases. While numerous approaches exist for detecting edge cases, a comprehensive survey reviewing these techniques is lacking. This paper bridges this gap by presenting a hierarchical review and systematic classification of edge case detection and assessment methodologies. Our classification is structured on two levels: first, by AV modules, including perception and trajectory-related (encompassing prediction, planning, and control) sub-systems; and second, by underlying methodologies and theories guiding these techniques. Furthermore, we introduce "knowledge-driven" approaches, which complement data-driven methods by leveraging expert insights and domain knowledge to identify cases absent in training datasets. We then examine techniques and metrics for evaluating edge case detection methods, including detection performance (e.g., precision, recall, false positive rates), practical deployment (e.g., computational overhead, detection delay), and domain-specific measures (e.g., crash rates, severity analysis). We conclude by highlighting key challenges for edge case detection, including data availability and quality issues, validation and interpretability limitations, the sim2real gap, and computational constraints. The hierarchical classification and review of methods and assessment techniques in this survey enable modular and targeted testing frameworks by guiding the selection of detection methods for specific AV subsystems while considering methodological principles. It also supports practical testing by facilitating scenario generation in simulation and focused subsystem validation in the real world.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hierarchical review and systematic classification of edge case detection and assessment methodologies for automated vehicles. The classification is structured on two levels—first by AV modules (perception and trajectory-related subsystems encompassing prediction, planning, and control) and second by underlying methodologies and theories, with an explicit distinction between data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches. It further reviews evaluation techniques and metrics (detection performance, practical deployment, domain-specific measures) and concludes with challenges including data quality, validation, the sim2real gap, and computational constraints. The central claim is that this framework enables modular testing and targeted scenario generation.

Significance. If the classification proves comprehensive and the coverage of prior work accurate, the survey would provide a useful organizing framework for AV safety research, helping researchers map methods to specific subsystems and distinguish knowledge-driven techniques that address out-of-distribution cases not captured in training data. No machine-checked proofs, code, or empirical results are presented, but the explicit two-level taxonomy and the data-driven vs. knowledge-driven distinction constitute a modest organizational contribution.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract states that 'a comprehensive survey reviewing these techniques is lacking' but does not cite or briefly contrast with any prior surveys on edge cases or AV safety; adding a short paragraph in the introduction that positions the work against existing reviews would strengthen the novelty claim.
  2. [Classification section] The description of knowledge-driven approaches is introduced as a complement to data-driven methods, yet the manuscript does not provide concrete examples or a table contrasting the two categories; a small illustrative table would improve clarity.
  3. [Evaluation techniques section] Evaluation metrics are listed (precision, recall, computational overhead, crash rates) but the paper does not indicate which metrics are most commonly reported in the surveyed literature or whether any standardized benchmarks exist; noting the distribution of reported metrics would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review of our survey on edge case detection methods for automated vehicles. The report accurately summarizes the two-level hierarchical classification (by AV modules and by methodologies, with the data-driven vs. knowledge-driven distinction), the coverage of evaluation metrics, and the listed challenges. No specific major comments were enumerated in the report, so we have no points to address point-by-point at this time. We remain available to clarify or revise any aspect if additional feedback is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: survey of external methods only

full rationale

This is a literature survey paper whose central contribution is a two-level hierarchical classification of existing edge-case detection techniques drawn from prior external work. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the manuscript. The classification (by AV module and by methodology, plus the data-driven vs. knowledge-driven distinction) is an organizational framework applied to outside references rather than a claim that reduces to quantities defined inside the paper. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any internal result. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a survey paper the work does not introduce fitted parameters, new axioms, or invented entities; it organizes prior literature. The classification itself is the main addition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5840 in / 1196 out tokens · 26699 ms · 2026-05-23T19:16:58.444623+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Artificial Intelligence for Modeling and Simulation of Mixed Automated and Human Traffic

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    This survey synthesizes AI techniques for mixed autonomy traffic simulation and introduces a taxonomy spanning agent-level behavior models, environment-level methods, and cognitive/physics-informed approaches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account,

    F. Santoni de Sio and J. Van den Hoven, “Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 5, p. 15, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them,

    F. Santoni de Sio and G. Mecacci, “Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1057–1084, 2021. PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, OCTOBER 2024 19

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    A system- atic approach towards the definition of the terms edge case and corner case for automated driving,

    L. Vater, M. Sonntag, J. Hiller, P. Schaudt, and L. Eckstein, “A system- atic approach towards the definition of the terms edge case and corner case for automated driving,” in 2023 3rd International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Road vehicles — safety of the intended functionality , Available at: https: //www.iso.org/standard/77490.html, Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Systematization of corner cases for visual perception in automated driving,

    J. Breitenstein, J. A. Termohlen, D. Lipinski, and T. Fingscheidt, “Systematization of corner cases for visual perception in automated driving,”IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, pp. 1257– 1264, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    An application-driven concep- tualization of corner cases for perception in highly automated driving,

    F. Heidecker, J. Breitenstein, K. Rosch, J. Lohdefink, M. Bieshaar, C. Stiller, T. Fingscheidt, and B. Sick, “An application-driven concep- tualization of corner cases for perception in highly automated driving,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings , vol. 2021-July, pp. 644–651, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Bogdoll, M

    D. Bogdoll, M. Nitsche, and J. M. Z ¨ollner, Anomaly detection in autonomous driving: A survey , 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling,

    C. Wang, Y . Xie, H. Huang, and P. Liu, “A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling,”Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 157, p. 106 157, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Finding critical scenarios for automated driving systems: A systematic mapping study,

    X. Zhang, J. Tao, K. Tan, M. T ¨orngren, J. M. G. S ´anchez, M. R. Ramli, X. Tao, M. Gyllenhammar, F. Wotawa, N. Mohan, M. Nica, and H. Felbinger, “Finding critical scenarios for automated driving systems: A systematic mapping study,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 991–1026, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    S. International, Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , https://www.sae.org/ standards/content/j3016 202104, Accessed: 2024-08-28, 2021

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Credible autonomy safety argumentation,

    P. Koopman, A. Kane, and J. Black, “Credible autonomy safety argumentation,” 2019. [Online]. Available: http://users.ece.cmu.edu/ ∼koopman/pubs/Koopman19 SSS CredibleSafetyArgumentation.pdf

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    The history, present and future with iot,

    N. Sharma, M. Shamkuwar, and I. Singh, “The history, present and future with iot,” Internet of things and big data analytics for smart generation, pp. 27–51, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Generalized out-of-distribution detection: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11334, 2021

    J. Yang, K. Zhou, Y . Li, and Z. Liu, “Generalized out-of-distribution detection: A survey,” CoRR, vol. abs/2110.11334, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.11334

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    A unified survey on anomaly, novelty, open-set, and out of- distribution detection: Solutions and future challenges,

    M. Salehi, H. Mirzaei, D. Hendrycks, Y . Li, M. H. Rohban, and M. Sabokrou, “A unified survey on anomaly, novelty, open-set, and out of- distribution detection: Solutions and future challenges,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , vol. 2022, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Runtime monitoring dnn-based perception,

    C. Chih-Hong, M. Luttenberger, and Y . Rongjie, “Runtime monitoring dnn-based perception,” in Runtime Verification, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 428–446

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Road anomaly detection by partial image reconstruction with segmentation coupling,

    T. V ojir, T. ˇSipka, R. Aljundi, N. Chumerin, D. O. Reino, and J. Matas, “Road anomaly detection by partial image reconstruction with segmentation coupling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 15 651–15 660

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Real-time out-of-distribution detection in learning-enabled cyber-physical systems,

    F. Cai and X. D. Koutsoukos, “Real-time out-of-distribution detection in learning-enabled cyber-physical systems,” in 11th ACM/IEEE Inter- national Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2020, Sydney, Australia, April 21-25, 2020 , IEEE, 2020, pp. 174–183. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPS48487.2020.00024

    work page doi:10.1109/iccps48487.2020.00024 2020

  18. [18]

    Efficient out-of-distribution detection using latent space of β -vae for cyber-physical systems,

    S. Ramakrishna, Z. Rahiminasab, G. Karsai, A. Easwaran, and A. Dubey, “Efficient out-of-distribution detection using latent space of β -vae for cyber-physical systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.11800 , 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Leveraging visual atten- tion for out-of-distribution detection,

    L. Cultrera, L. Seidenari, and A. Del Bimbo, “Leveraging visual atten- tion for out-of-distribution detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops , 2023, pp. 4447–4456

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Pixel-wise anomaly detection in complex driving scenes,

    G. Di Biase, H. Blum, R. Siegwart, and C. Cadena, “Pixel-wise anomaly detection in complex driving scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 16 918–16 927

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Misbehaviour prediction for autonomous driving systems,

    A. Stocco, M. Weiss, M. Calzana, and P. Tonella, “Misbehaviour prediction for autonomous driving systems,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd international conference on software engineering , 2020, pp. 359–371

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Toward unsupervised 3d point cloud anomaly detection using varia- tional autoencoder,

    M. Masuda, R. Hachiuma, R. Fujii, H. Saito, and Y . Sekikawa, “Toward unsupervised 3d point cloud anomaly detection using varia- tional autoencoder,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2021, pp. 3118–3122

    work page 2021

  23. [24]

    Energy-based out-of- distribution detection,

    W. Liu, X. Wang, J. D. Owens, and Y . Li, “Energy-based out-of- distribution detection,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , 2020

    work page 2020

  24. [25]

    Can multi-label classifica- tion networks know what they don’t know?

    H. Wang, W. Liu, A. Bocchieri, and Y . Li, “Can multi-label classifica- tion networks know what they don’t know?” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, 2021, pp. 29 074–29 087

    work page 2021

  25. [26]

    Enhancing the reliability of out-of- distribution image detection in neural networks,

    S. Liang, Y . Li, and R. Srikant, “Enhancing the reliability of out-of- distribution image detection in neural networks,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings , OpenReview.net, 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [27]

    Generalized odin: Detect- ing out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data,

    Y .-C. Hsu, Y . Shen, H. Jin, and Z. Kira, “Generalized odin: Detect- ing out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 10 951–10 960

    work page 2020

  27. [28]

    Dice: Leveraging sparsification for out-of- distribution detection,

    Y . Sun and Y . Li, “Dice: Leveraging sparsification for out-of- distribution detection,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2022: 17th Euro- pean Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXIV , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13684, Springer, 2022, pp. 691–708

    work page 2022

  28. [29]

    Training ood detectors in their natural habitats,

    J. Katz-Samuels, J. B. Nakhleh, R. Nowak, and Y . Li, “Training ood detectors in their natural habitats,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 10 848–10 865

    work page 2022

  29. [30]

    Feed two birds with one scone: Exploiting wild data for both out-of-distribution generalization and detection,

    H. Bai, G. Canal, X. Du, J. Kwon, R. D. Nowak, and Y . Li, “Feed two birds with one scone: Exploiting wild data for both out-of-distribution generalization and detection,” in ICML 2023 , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 202, 2023, pp. 1454–1471. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/bai23a.html

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    Unknown-aware object detection: Learning what you don’t know from videos in the wild,

    X. Du, X. Wang, G. Gozum, and Y . Li, “Unknown-aware object detection: Learning what you don’t know from videos in the wild,” in IEEE CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 , IEEE, 2022, pp. 13 668–13 678

    work page 2022

  31. [32]

    Mood: Multi-level out-of-distribution detection,

    Z. Lin, S. D. Roy, and Y . Li, “Mood: Multi-level out-of-distribution detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 15 313–15 323

    work page 2021

  32. [33]

    Radar ghost target detection via multimodal transformers,

    L. Wang, S. Giebenhain, C. Anklam, and B. Goldluecke, “Radar ghost target detection via multimodal transformers,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7758–7765, 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [34]

    Detecting ghost targets using multilayer perceptron in multiple-target tracking,

    I.-h. Ryu, I. Won, and J. Kwon, “Detecting ghost targets using multilayer perceptron in multiple-target tracking,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 16, 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [35]

    Tackling clutter in radar data-label generation and detection using pointnet++,

    J. Kopp, D. Kellner, A. Piroli, and K. Dietmayer, “Tackling clutter in radar data-label generation and detection using pointnet++,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 1493–1499

    work page 2023

  35. [36]

    Using machine learning to detect ghost images in automotive radar,

    F. Kraus, N. Scheiner, W. Ritter, and K. Dietmayer, “Using machine learning to detect ghost images in automotive radar,” in 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2020, pp. 1–7

    work page 2020

  36. [37]

    React: Out-of-distribution detection with rectified activations,

    Y . Sun, C. Guo, and Y . Li, “React: Out-of-distribution detection with rectified activations,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual , 2021, pp. 144–157

    work page 2021

  37. [38]

    Runtime Monitoring Neuron Activation Patterns

    C.-H. Cheng, G. N ¨uhrenberg, and H. Yasuoka, “Runtime monitoring neuron activation patterns,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1809.06573

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [39]

    Outside the box: Abstraction-based monitoring of neural networks,

    T. A. Henzinger, A. Lukina, and C. Schilling, “Outside the box: Abstraction-based monitoring of neural networks,” in ECAI 2020 - 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29 August-8 September 2020, Santiago de Compostela, Spain , ser. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 325, IOS Press, 2020, pp. 2433–2440

    work page 2020

  39. [40]

    Into the unknown: Active monitoring of neural networks,

    A. Lukina, C. Schilling, and T. A. Henzinger, “Into the unknown: Active monitoring of neural networks,” in Runtime Verification - 21st International Conference, RV 2021, Virtual Event, October 11-14, 2021, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12974, Springer, 2021. PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION ...

    work page 2021

  40. [41]

    Provably-robust runtime monitoring of neuron activation patterns,

    C.-H. Cheng, “Provably-robust runtime monitoring of neuron activation patterns,” in 2021 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2021, pp. 1310–1313

    work page 2021

  41. [42]

    Gaussian- based runtime detection of out-of-distribution inputs for neural net- works,

    V . Hashemi, J. Kret \’{\i}nsk´y, S. Mohr, and E. Seferis, “Gaussian- based runtime detection of out-of-distribution inputs for neural net- works,” in Runtime Verification - 21st International Conference, RV 2021, Virtual Event, October 11-14, 2021, Proceedings , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12974, Springer, 2021, pp. 254–264

    work page 2021

  42. [43]

    Runtime monitoring for out-of-distribution detection in object detection neural networks,

    V . Hashemi, J. Kret \’{\i}nsk´y, S. Rieder, and J. Schmidt, “Runtime monitoring for out-of-distribution detection in object detection neural networks,” in Formal Methods - 25th International Symposium, FM 2023, L ¨ubeck, Germany, March 6-10, 2023, Proceedings , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14000, Springer, 2023, pp. 622–634

    work page 2023

  43. [44]

    Detecting out-of-distribution examples with gram matrices,

    C. S. Sastry and S. Oore, “Detecting out-of-distribution examples with gram matrices,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 119, PMLR, 2020, pp. 8491–8501

    work page 2020

  44. [45]

    Provable guarantees for understanding out-of- distribution detection,

    P. Morteza and Y . Li, “Provable guarantees for understanding out-of- distribution detection,” in AAAI 2022 , AAAI Press, 2022, pp. 7831– 7840

    work page 2022

  45. [46]

    Safe: Sensitivity-aware features for out-of-distribution object detection,

    S. Wilson, T. Fischer, F. Dayoub, D. Miller, and N. S ¨underhauf, “Safe: Sensitivity-aware features for out-of-distribution object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 23 565–23 576

    work page 2023

  46. [47]

    Out-of-distribution detection with deep nearest neighbors,

    Y . Sun, Y . Ming, X. Zhu, and Y . Li, “Out-of-distribution detection with deep nearest neighbors,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 162, PMLR, 2022, pp. 20 827–20 840. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v162/sun22d.html

    work page 2022

  47. [48]

    Out-of- distribution detection for deep neural networks with isolation forest and local outlier factor,

    S. Luan, Z. Gu, L. B. Freidovich, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhao, “Out-of- distribution detection for deep neural networks with isolation forest and local outlier factor,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 132 980–132 989, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3108451

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2021.3108451 2021

  48. [49]

    Real-time fusion network for rgb-d semantic segmentation incorporating unexpected obstacle detection for road-driving images,

    L. Sun, K. Yang, X. Hu, W. Hu, and K. Wang, “Real-time fusion network for rgb-d semantic segmentation incorporating unexpected obstacle detection for road-driving images,” IEEE robotics and au- tomation letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5558–5565, 2020

    work page 2020

  49. [50]

    Percemon: Online monitoring for perception systems,

    A. Balakrishnan, J. Deshmukh, B. Hoxha, T. Yamaguchi, and G. Fainekos, “Percemon: Online monitoring for perception systems,” in Runtime Verification - 21st International Conference, RV 2021, Virtual Event, October 11-14, 2021, Proceedings , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12974, Springer, 2021, pp. 297–308

    work page 2021

  50. [51]

    Towards corner case detection for autonomous driving,

    J. A. Bolte, A. Bar, D. Lipinski, and T. Fingscheidt, “Towards corner case detection for autonomous driving,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, vol. 2019-June, pp. 438–445, 2019

    work page 2019

  51. [52]

    Future frame prediction for anomaly detection–a new baseline,

    W. Liu, W. Luo, D. Lian, and S. Gao, “Future frame prediction for anomaly detection–a new baseline,” in Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 6536–6545

    work page 2018

  52. [53]

    Learning normal dynamics in videos with meta prototype network,

    H. Lv, C. Chen, Z. Cui, C. Xu, Y . Li, and J. Yang, “Learning normal dynamics in videos with meta prototype network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 15 425–15 434

    work page 2021

  53. [54]

    Semantic anomaly detection with large language models,

    A. Elhafsi, R. Sinha, C. Agia, E. Schmerling, I. A. Nesnas, and M. Pavone, “Semantic anomaly detection with large language models,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1035–1055, 2023

    work page 2023

  54. [55]

    Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability,

    J. An and S. Cho, “Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability,” Special lecture on IE , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2015

    work page 2015

  55. [56]

    Practical autoencoder based anomaly detection by using vector reconstruction error,

    H. Torabi, S. L. Mirtaheri, and S. Greco, “Practical autoencoder based anomaly detection by using vector reconstruction error,” Cybersecurity, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1, 2023

    work page 2023

  56. [57]

    Generative neural networks for anomaly detection in crowded scenes,

    T. Wang, M. Qiao, Z. Lin, C. Li, H. Snoussi, Z. Liu, and C. Choi, “Generative neural networks for anomaly detection in crowded scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1390–1399, 2018

    work page 2018

  57. [58]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” in Conference on Robot Learning , 2017, pp. 1–16

    work page 2017

  58. [59]

    Man vs. computer: Benchmarking machine learning algorithms for traffic sign recogni- tion,

    J. Stallkamp, M. Schlipsing, J. Salmen, and C. Igel, “Man vs. computer: Benchmarking machine learning algorithms for traffic sign recogni- tion,” Neural Networks, 2012

    work page 2012

  59. [60]

    Ros: An open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, A. Y . Ng, et al. , “Ros: An open-source robot operating system,” in ICRA workshop on open source software , Kobe, Japan, vol. 3, 2009, p. 5

    work page 2009

  60. [61]

    Online learning and sequential anomaly detection in trajectories,

    R. Laxhammar and G. Falkman, “Online learning and sequential anomaly detection in trajectories,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1158–1173, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.172

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2013.172 2014

  61. [62]

    B. T. Morris and M. M. Trivedi, A survey of vision-based trajectory learning and analysis for surveillance , 2008

    work page 2008

  62. [63]

    Space, time, and interaction: A taxonomy of corner cases in trajectory datasets for automated driving,

    K. Rosch, F. Heidecker, J. Truetsch, K. Kowol, C. Schicktanz, M. Bieshaare, B. Sick, and C. Stiller, “Space, time, and interaction: A taxonomy of corner cases in trajectory datasets for automated driving,” in IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) , IEEE, 2022, pp. 86–93

    work page 2022

  63. [64]

    Towards corner case identification in cyclists’ trajec- tories,

    F. Heidecker, M. Bieshaar, B. Sick, H. J. Hof, M. Fritz, C. Krauß, and O. Wasenm¨uller, “Towards corner case identification in cyclists’ trajec- tories,” in CSCS’19: COMPUTER SCIENCE IN CARS SYMPOSIUM , Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 1–2

    work page 2019

  64. [65]

    Near miss determination through use of a scale of danger,

    J. C. Hayward, “Near miss determination through use of a scale of danger,” Pennsylvania State University, Tech. Rep., 1972. [Online]. Available: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/hrr/1972/384/384- 004.pdf

    work page 1972

  65. [66]

    R. Ke, J. Lutin, J. Spears, and Y . Wang, A cost-effective framework for automated vehicle-pedestrian near-miss detection through onboard monocular vision, 2017

    work page 2017

  66. [67]

    A situation and threat assessment algorithm for a rear-end collision avoidance system,

    M. Brannstrom, J. Sjoberg, and E. Coelingh, “A situation and threat assessment algorithm for a rear-end collision avoidance system,” in 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium , IEEE, 2008, pp. 102–107

    work page 2008

  67. [68]

    Comparing collision threat measures for verification of autonomous vehicles using extreme value theory,

    D. ˚Asljung, J. Nilsson, and J. Fredriksson, “Comparing collision threat measures for verification of autonomous vehicles using extreme value theory,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 15, pp. 57–62, 2016

    work page 2016

  68. [69]

    Identification of challenging highway-scenarios for the safety validation of automated vehicles based on real driving data,

    T. Ponn, M. Breitfuß, X. Yu, and F. Diermeyer, “Identification of challenging highway-scenarios for the safety validation of automated vehicles based on real driving data,” in 2020 Fifteenth International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER) , 2020, pp. 1–10

    work page 2020

  69. [70]

    Method for quantitative evaluation of traffic complexity on the highway,

    X. Yu, “Method for quantitative evaluation of traffic complexity on the highway,” Technical University of Munich, Tech. Rep., 2020

    work page 2020

  70. [71]

    Traffic sensory data classi- fication by quantifying scenario complexity,

    J. Wang, C. Zhang, Y . Liu, and Q. Zhang, “Traffic sensory data classi- fication by quantifying scenario complexity,” in 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1543–1548

    work page 2018

  71. [72]

    A systematic mapping review of surrogate safety assessment using traffic conflict techniques,

    A. Arun, M. M. Haque, A. Bhaskar, S. Washington, and T. Sayed, “A systematic mapping review of surrogate safety assessment using traffic conflict techniques,” Accident Analysis & Prevention , vol. 153, p. 106 016, 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [73]

    Westhofen, C

    L. Westhofen, C. Neurohr, T. Koopmann, M. Butz, B. Sch ¨utt, F. Utesch, B. Neurohr, C. Gutenkunst, and E. B ¨ode, Criticality metrics for automated driving: A review and suitability analysis of the state of the art, 2023

    work page 2023

  73. [74]

    Defining reasonably foreseeable parameter ranges using real-world traffic data for scenario- based safety assessment of automated vehicles,

    H. Nakamura, H. Muslim, R. Kato, S. Prefontaine-Watanabe, H. Nakamura, H. Kaneko, H. Imanaga, J. Antona-Makoshi, S. Kitajima, N. Uchida, E. Kitahara, K. Ozawa, and S. Taniguchi, “Defining reasonably foreseeable parameter ranges using real-world traffic data for scenario- based safety assessment of automated vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 37 743–37 760, 2022

    work page 2022

  74. [75]

    Cut-out scenario generation with reasonability foreseeable parameter range from real highway dataset for autonomous vehicle assessment,

    H. Muslim, S. Endo, H. Imanaga, S. Kitajima, N. Uchida, E. Kitahara, K. Ozawa, H. Sato, and H. Nakamura, “Cut-out scenario generation with reasonability foreseeable parameter range from real highway dataset for autonomous vehicle assessment,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 45 349–45 363, 2023

    work page 2023

  75. [76]

    A quantitative method to determine what collisions are reasonably foreseeable and preventable,

    E. de Gelder and O. Op den Camp, “A quantitative method to determine what collisions are reasonably foreseeable and preventable,” Safety Science, vol. 167, p. 106 233, 2023

    work page 2023

  76. [77]

    Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review,

    G. Pang, C. Shen, L. Cao, and A. V . D. Hengel, “Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 2, 2021

    work page 2021

  77. [78]

    Corner case generation and analysis for safety assessment of autonomous vehicles,

    H. Sun, S. Feng, X. Yan, and H. X. Liu, “Corner case generation and analysis for safety assessment of autonomous vehicles,” Transportation research record, vol. 2675, no. 11, pp. 587–600, 2021

    work page 2021

  78. [79]

    End-to-end autonomous driv- ing risk analysis: A behavioural anomaly detection approach,

    C. Ryan, F. Murphy, and M. Mullins, “End-to-end autonomous driv- ing risk analysis: A behavioural anomaly detection approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1650–1662, 2021

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    Prediction of near- crashes from observed vehicle kinematics using machine learning,

    O. A. Osman, M. Hajij, P. R. Bakhit, and S. Ishak, “Prediction of near- crashes from observed vehicle kinematics using machine learning,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2673, no. 12, pp. 463–473, 2019

    work page 2019

  80. [81]

    Detecting edge cases from trajectory datasets using deep learning based outlier detec- tion,

    M. Sonntag, L. Vater, R. Vuskov, and L. Eckstein, “Detecting edge cases from trajectory datasets using deep learning based outlier detec- tion,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Vehicle PREPRINT SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, OCTOBER 2024 21 Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2...

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.