Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Approval Guidelines for an Automated Driving System Deployment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.09880 v2 pith:HO2N2MY4 submitted 2025-05-15 cs.SE cs.CY

classification cs.SEcs.CY
keywords riskcriteriadeterminationreadinessabsenceapprovalautomateddeployment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper provides an overview of how the determination of absence of unreasonable risk can be operationalized. It complements previous theoretical work published by existing developers of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) on the overall engineering practices and methodologies for readiness determination. Readiness determination is, at its core, a risk assessment process. It is aimed at evaluating the residual risk associated with a new deployment. The paper proposes methodological criteria to ground the readiness review process for an ADS release. While informed by Waymo's experience in this domain, the criteria presented are agnostic of any specific ADS technological solution and/or architectural choice, to support broad implementation by others in the industry. The paper continues with a discussion on governance and decision-making toward approval of a new release candidate for the ADS. The implementation of the presented criteria requires the existence of appropriate safety management practices in addition to many other cultural, procedural, and operational considerations. As such, the paper is concluded by a statement of limitations for those wishing to replicate part or all of its content.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Assessing a Safety Case: Bottom-up Guidance for Claims and Evidence Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper defines scoring rubrics for claim support (procedural and implementation) and evidence status, forming a bottom-up method for ADS safety case credibility assessment.

Pith tools