Functionality Assessment Framework for Autonomous Driving Systems using Subjective Networks

J. Marius Z\"ollner; Marc Ren\'e Zofka; Oliver Conder; Stefan Orf; Sven Ochs; Valentin Marotta

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Functionality Assessment Framework for Autonomous Driving Systems using Subjective Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the overall functionality of an autonomous-driving stack can be computed as one subjective-logic opinion on an artificial sink node, built recursively from component assessments, trust weights, and dependency…

desk verdict Useful subjective-logic framework for aggregating AD component assessments, but the evaluation ignores its own independence assumption, so the dependency-handling claim is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02922 v1 pith:3Q5WD6G7 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.RO

Stefan Orf , Sven Ochs , Valentin Marotta , Oliver Conder , Marc René Zofka , J. Marius Zöllner This is my paper

classification cs.RO

keywords subjectivelogicnetworksfunctionalityassessmentautonomousdrivinggraphopinionfusiontrustdiscountdeductionoperator

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Autonomous-driving systems are built from many components, each with its own assessment module that says whether that piece is working. This paper proposes a way to combine all these separate, sometimes contradictory assessments into one overall statement of whether the whole stack is functioning. The central idea is to encode the system as a subjective network, a graph where every component and every assessment carries a subjective-logic opinion with belief, disbelief, and explicit uncertainty, and then propagate those opinions up to an artificial sink node representing the whole system. If the framework works, a safety engineer gets a single uncertainty-aware verdict at runtime, and the graph structure shows which faulty component is responsible. This matters because current practice gives isolated per-component measures but no mathematically grounded way to stitch them into a system-level picture.

What carries the argument

The assessment graph: a subjective network whose nodes are functional components, assessment modules, an overall assessment node $A$, and an artificial sink node $Z$, with edges for dependencies, functional trust, and referral trust. The recursive combination of Eq. 7 and Eq. 8 — trust discount $\otimes$, aleatory cumulative fusion $\oplus$, and the deduction operator $\circledcirc$ — is what carries the argument, converting a local battery of component opinions into a single global binomial opinion about system functionality. The artificial sink $Z$ is the load-bearing device: because every output-producing component feeds into it, the opinion about $Z$ is by construction the opinion about the system.

What would settle it

Take the three-component structure where components $y$ and $z$ both consume localization $x$, and set $x$'s assessment to 'failing' with high certainty. Compute the framework's overall opinion two ways: once with Eq. 5's independence-based joint opinion $\omega_A^{y,z} = \omega_A^y \cdot \omega_A^z$, and once using the true joint opinion with $y$ and $z$ conditionally dependent given $x$ (for example, both fail together when $x$ fails). Any difference in the final overall opinion $\omega_A^Z$ between the two computations — which will occur whenever the conditional dependence is strong — quantifies exactly how much the independence assumption distorts the system-level verdict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the overall functionality of a component-based message-passing system can be computed as a single subjective-logic opinion $\omega_A^Z$ of an overall assessment node $A$ about an artificial sink node $Z$, where $Z$ depends on all end-point components. The computation is recursive: for each component $x$, the framework forms an opinion $\omega_A^x$ by fusing two sources of evidence — the deduction of $x$'s functionality from its dependencies ($\omega_A^{x_{\mathrm{in}}} \circledcirc \omega_A^{x|x_{\mathrm{in}}}$) and the trust-discounted opinions of all assessment modules that monitor $x$ ($\bigoplus_\alpha \omega_A^\alpha \otimes \omega_\alpha^x$) — via Eq. 7. Opinions on dependency sets are formed by multinomial multiplication under an independence assumption (Eq. 5). The overall statement is then $\omega_A^Z = \omega_A^{Z_{\mathrm{in}}} \circledcirc \omega_A^{Z|Z_{\mathrm{in}}}$ (Eq. 8). The framework handles conflicting concurrent assessments by aleatory cumulative fusion, weights assessments by referral trust, and models error propagation through the dependency structure, yielding both a global verdict and a way to localize faulty system parts. The authors demonstrate the method on real data from their autonomous-driving vehicle with assessments for the planner, a lanelet map, and localization.

Load-bearing premise

The computation builds the joint opinion over each node's dependencies with Eq. 5 under the assumption that all dependencies are independent, and the paper gives no way to handle correlated dependencies; in a real AD stack, components share inputs (for example, the lanelet map and the planner both depend on localization), so the whole recursive verdict can be distorted when that independence fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At runtime, an AD stack can be monitored with a single opinion whose belief, disbelief, and uncertainty summarize the whole system, instead of a set of disconnected per-component alarms.
Referral trust lets the operator weight assessment modules, so a trusted high-quality AM dominates the fused opinion and an untrusted one is discounted.
Dependencies propagate malfunction upstream: an assessment of a downstream component is automatically downgraded when the data sources it depends on are faulty, which the dependency examples in Fig. 3c demonstrate.
Missing or non-subjective assessments can be filled with constant or vacuous opinions, or mapped to binomial opinions via evidence, so the framework works even with partial AM coverage.
The same construction applies to any component-based message-passing architecture, not just driving, since the graph is built solely from data-exchange dependencies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Correlated dependencies are the natural next step: replacing the independence-based joint opinion of Eq. 5 with a joint opinion that encodes shared inputs (e.g., two downstream components both fed by localization) would remove the main structural gap and make the overall verdict valid for realistic data-flow topologies.
The explicit uncertainty in the final opinion could serve as a safety gate — e.g., an autonomous vehicle could be programmed to hand control to a fallback driver or enter a minimal-risk maneuver when the overall opinion's uncertainty crosses a threshold.
A testable extension is to apply the framework to a system with designed-in redundancy (two independent localization sources) and verify that cumulative fusion raises certainty more than either single source, quantifying the redundancy benefit.
Because the assessment graph mirrors the system architecture bijectively, one could automate graph construction from a data-flow model or message-passing graph of a large stack, making system-level assessment scale beyond manually drawn graphs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's contribution is a graph-based framework that aggregates component-level functionality assessments into a single overall opinion using subjective logic. The assessment graph with separate dependency and trust edges, and the recursive aggregation equation (Eq. 7), are not present verbatim in prior work. The authors build on Jøsang's operators and openly acknowledge that, and they ship an actual SL library (SUBJ) and evaluate on real data from their AD stack. That is real engineering effort, and the graph representation is clear and plausible.

The main soft spot is the independence assumption in Eq. 5. The paper states the product factorization is valid "in case all dependencies of x are independent," which is honest. But the evaluation system violates that condition: in their AG (Fig. 1), the planner and the Lanelet-map assessments both depend on localization, and the Lanelet AM beta depends on both the grid map and localization. Shared ancestors make the parent states correlated, so the product of marginals used in Eq. 5 is not the joint opinion. The deduced opinions in Eqs. 6-8 are therefore not the correct posterior for the demonstrated system. The paper gives no treatment for correlated dependencies and no sensitivity analysis. This is a load-bearing issue because the abstract emphasizes handling dependencies, redundancies, and error propagation.

A lesser issue: the evaluation has no ground-truth comparison or baselines. It shows the machinery produces sensible-looking curves, but it does not validate the framework against an independent truth. The authors are transparent about this, and for a first demonstration it is acceptable, but it limits what can be claimed.

The paper is for people working on runtime health monitoring or fault diagnosis in AD and robotics. The framework is a useful synthesis of subjective logic for this problem, and the code is a plus. But I would not rely on the overall opinion as correct until the correlated-dependency problem is addressed, either with a proper method or clear scoping to independent-dependency cases.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves serious refereeing because the framework is potentially useful and the writing is clear. The reviewers should push for a treatment of correlated dependencies or an explicit limitation, and ideally a comparison against simpler baselines.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for deriving an overall functionality assessment of a component-based autonomous driving (AD) system by representing the system as a Subjective Network (SN). The assessment graph (AG) maps functional components, assessment modules (AMs), their trust relationships, and data dependencies to nodes and edges. The overall opinion about the artificial sink node Z is computed by recursively applying trust discount (Eq. 3), aleatory cumulative fusion (Eq. 4), multinomial multiplication for independent dependencies (Eq. 5), deduction (Eq. 6), and a combined update rule (Eq. 7), culminating in Eq. (8). The framework is demonstrated on real data from the authors' AD vehicle with assessments of the planner, Lanelet map, and localization, showing time-varying beliefs and uncertainties for individual components and the overall system. The authors also release a C++/Python subjective logic library (SUBJ).

Significance. If the central derivation is accepted, the framework offers a useful formalization for combining heterogeneous per-component functionality assessments into a single uncertainty-aware system-level statement, with transparent handling of trust weighting and concurrent assessments. The bijective mapping between the system architecture and the assessment graph is a clear conceptual strength, and the public release of the SUBJ library supports reproducibility. However, the paper's main claim—that it handles dependencies and error propagation—rests on an independence assumption that is violated in the very evaluation graph used, and the real-data demonstration lacks any ground-truth comparison. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the contribution can be fully credited.

major comments (3)

[Sec. V-C, Eq. (5); Sec. VI-B, Fig. 1] The computation of the joint opinion over a node's dependencies as a product of marginal opinions (Eq. 5) is valid only when the dependencies are independent, a condition the paper states but does not enforce in the evaluation. In the graph of Sec. VI-B (Fig. 1), the planner node y has parents x (Lanelet map) and w (localization), and x itself depends on w; similarly, the Lanelet-map AM β depends on both the grid map u and the localization w. Thus the parents of y are not independent, so the product in Eq. (5) is not the joint opinion over {x,w}, and the deduced opinion in Eq. (6) and the overall opinion in Eq. (8) do not represent the correct posterior functionality under the stated dependency structure. The manuscript should either restrict the demonstrated evaluation to an independent-parents graph, extend the framework with a method for correlated dependencies (e.g., constructing the joint opinion directly or using a more general conditional structure), or provide a sensitivity analysis quantifying the effect of the violated assumption.
[Sec. VI-B, Fig. 4] The real-data demonstration has no ground-truth comparison. The inputs to the inference—referral trust opinions, conditional opinions, and constant opinions for unassessed nodes—are user-defined, so the overall opinion ω^A_Z is by construction a function of these inputs; the plots show only that the pipeline runs and that the outputs respond to changes in the inputs. No fault injection, known system state, or quantitative agreement metric is provided. Thus the paper does not demonstrate that the inferred overall opinion is correct or calibrated, only that the mechanism is executable. The authors should add a validation scenario against ground truth (e.g., artificially injected faults with known system-level effect) or reframe the claims as a demonstration of the framework's mechanics rather than feasibility/validity.
[Secs. V-B and V-C, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The fusion and deduction operators are applied without accounting for the fact that the opinions being combined may stem from dependent sources. The concurrent AMs β and δ both depend on the localization w, so their opinions about the Lanelet map x are not independent evidence; the aleatory cumulative fusion in Eq. (4) may double-count shared evidence. Likewise, the deduction in Eq. (6) inherits the independence assumption of Eq. (5). The paper does not discuss the conditions under which these subjective-logic operators are appropriate for dependent sources, nor does it provide a remedy (e.g., using a fusion rule that accounts for source dependence). This is a load-bearing point because the evaluation graph contains exactly this kind of sharing.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV-A] The notation for node sets is inconsistent: the text says 'a node x∈V d' but the set of functional nodes is V_f (Eq. 2); please correct and check all set symbols in Sec. IV.
[Sec. VI-A.3] The localization assessment opinion is labeled ω^β_x, which is the symbol used for the Lanelet-map AM β; it should presumably be ω^α_w (or a consistent symbol for the localization assessment).
[Sec. VI-B.2] The reference to 'incorporating the functional trust opinion of dependencies (Sec. V-C)' appears to be a cross-reference error; Sec. V-C is about dependencies, while fusion of concurrent assessments is the topic of Sec. V-B.
[Fig. 3c caption] The phrase 'Deduction of a resulting opinion given two opinions' is ambiguous; it should specify that the deduction uses the joint opinion of the two input opinions about dependencies.
[Eqs. (9)-(10)] The base rate a_x is not defined for the binomial opinions used in the trajectory planner assessment; please state the assumed base rate or explain why it is omitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the overall opinion is a defined composition of explicit subjective inputs, not a disguised fit, self-citation chain, or prediction tautology.

full rationale

The paper's chain of derivation is self-contained as a framework: Eq. 7 recursively defines each functional node's opinion from (i) a deduction over dependency opinions and conditional opinions and (ii) trust-discounted AM assessments, and Eq. 8 applies the same definition to the artificial sink Z. These equations are not fitted to data and no output is presented as an empirical prediction that is then validated against a ground truth; the framework explicitly takes trust opinions (Sec. V-A), conditional opinions (Sec. V-C), and dependency opinions as inputs. The evaluation in Sec. VI-B demonstrates how the output changes with these inputs, which is by construction, but that is the intended aggregation semantics, not a hidden reduction of a prediction to a fit. The only load-bearing external reference is Jøsang's Subjective Logic [8], which is standard foundational mathematics, not a self-citation. Self-citations to SUBJ [12], the prior modular fault diagnosis framework [14], and the CoCarNextGen vehicle [3] concern implementation, related work, and the data source, respectively; none are used to justify the mathematical derivation. The explicit independence assumption in Eq. 5 ('in case all dependencies of x are independent') is a stated limitation that could affect correctness when dependencies share ancestors, but it is not circular: it is an openly declared condition, not an ansatz smuggled in via citation or a renamed input. Thus the paper exhibits no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central computation depends on user-set trust and conditional opinions, on the independence assumption for dependencies, and on the construction of artificial nodes A and Z. The framework is transparent about these choices, but they are not derived from first principles or independent data. No parameters are fitted to ground truth, but the evaluation cannot validate the aggregation without them.

free parameters (3)

Referral trust opinions omega^A_alpha = User-chosen, e.g., low trust for t<500 and high trust for t>=500 in Fig. 3a
These opinions control how much each assessment module is weighted in the aggregation. They are set by the user or system designer, not learned from data.
Conditional opinions omega^A_{x|x_in} = Manually specified in evaluation, e.g., 'only if both u and w are operable' in Sec. VI-B.3
These encode how a component's functionality depends on its parents. They determine the deduction result and are not derived from measurements.
Constant opinions for unassessed nodes = Not specified in Sec. V-E; examples include vacuous opinions
When an AM is missing, the framework requires a constant opinion from A. The choice of uncertainty and assumed functionality is a free design parameter.

assumptions (5)

standard math Subjective logic operator definitions and properties as defined in Jøsang [8]
The framework builds on trust discount, aleatory cumulative fusion, and deduction operators from [8] without re-deriving them.
domain assumption Dependencies between components are fully described by the data flow graph
Sec. IV-A states that the functionality of a component depends only on the functioning of its parents in the message-passing graph. This ignores other coupling mechanisms such as shared compute resources or environmental context.
domain assumption The dependency graph is loop-free
Sec. IV-A requires x not depend on any node that indirectly processes data from x. Real systems may have feedback loops, which are excluded.
ad hoc to paper Dependencies of a node are independent of each other
Eq. 5 uses multinomial multiplication for the joint dependency opinion. The paper says 'in case all dependencies of x are independent' but does not provide an alternative for correlated dependencies, which are likely in AD systems with shared inputs.
domain assumption The overall system functionality is represented by a single artificial sink node Z
Sec. IV-C assumes that the system's functionality is reflected by the functioning of components that output to the environment. This is a modeling choice, not proven.

invented entities (2)

Artificial overall assessment node A
purpose: Acts as the owner of referral trust opinions and as the aggregation entity for the system-level functionality statement
A is a notational tool introduced to represent the system's overall perspective. It has no external measurable counterpart.
Artificial sink node Z
purpose: Represents the system's overall functionality by depending on all end-point functional nodes
Z is constructed as a sink for output messages. It is a modeling artifact with no physical realization.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Functionality Assessment Framework for Autonomous Driving Systems using Subjective Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Q5WD6G7

@misc{pith2026250602922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Functionality Assessment Framework for Autonomous Driving Systems using Subjective Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Q5WD6G7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02922}
}

read the original abstract

In complex autonomous driving (AD) software systems, the functioning of each system part is crucial for safe operation. By measuring the current functionality or operability of individual components an isolated glimpse into the system is given. Literature provides several of these detached assessments, often in the form of safety or performance measures. But dependencies, redundancies, error propagation and conflicting functionality statements do not allow for easy combination of these measures into a big picture of the functioning of the entire AD stack. Data is processed and exchanged between different components, each of which can fail, making an overall statement challenging. The lack of functionality assessment frameworks that tackle these problems underlines this complexity. This article presents a novel framework for inferring an overall functionality statement for complex component based systems by considering their dependencies, redundancies, error propagation paths and the assessments of individual components. Our framework first incorporates a comprehensive conversion to an assessment representation of the system. The representation is based on Subjective Networks (SNs) that allow for easy identification of faulty system parts. Second, the framework offers a flexible method for computing the system's functionality while dealing with contradicting assessments about the same component and dependencies, as well as redundancies, of the system. We discuss the framework's capabilities on real-life data of our AD stack with assessments of various components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02922 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Depiction of the recursive Eq. 7 for calculation of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Changes of beliefs b (lines) over time with corresponding uncertainty u (height of the shaded area) during the inference of ω A Z for opinions marked as ⃝4 , ⃝2 , ⃝1 in the AG in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Belief and uncertainties of the assessment opinions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems1, 176–186 (2020)

Geissler, F., Unnervik, A., Paulitsch, M.: A Plausibility-Based Fault Detection Method for High-Level Fusion Perception Systems. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems1, 176–186 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION)

Griebel, T., Heinzler, J., Buchholz, M., Dietmayer, K.: Online Per- formance Assessment of Multi-Sensor Kalman Filters Based on Sub- jective Logic. In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). IEEE, Charleston, SC, USA (Jun 2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Heinrich, M., Zipfl, M., Uecker, M., Ochs, S., Gontscharow, M., Fleck, T., Doll, J., Sch ¨orner, P., Hubschneider, C., Zofka, M.R., Viehl, A., Z¨ollner, J.M.: Cocar nextgen: a multi-purpose platform for connected autonomous driving research (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2404.17550

arXiv 2024
[4]

Sensors23(11) (May 2023)

Hou, W., Li, W., Li, P.: Fault Diagnosis of the Autonomous Driving Perception System Based on Information Fusion. Sensors23(11) (May 2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Standard, International Electrotechnical Commission and others, Geneva, Switzerland (2018)

IEC 60812:2018: Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA). Standard, International Electrotechnical Commission and others, Geneva, Switzerland (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Standard, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzer- land (2018)

ISO 26262:2018(en): Road vehicles — functional safety. Standard, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzer- land (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Electronics13(2) (Jan 2024)

Jin, T., Zhang, C., Zhang, Y ., Yang, M., Ding, W.: A Hybrid Fault Diagnosis Method for Autonomous Driving Sensing Systems Based on Information Complexity. Electronics13(2) (Jan 2024)

work page 2024
[8]

Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms, Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

Jøsang, A.: Subjective Logic. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms, Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 21 references

[9]

no/ifi/english/people/aca/josang/sl/

Jøsang, A.: Subjective Logic (Oct 2020),https://www.mn.uio. no/ifi/english/people/aca/josang/sl/

2020
[10]

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

Lu, Y ., Li, G., Yue, Y ., Wang, Z.: Fault Detection and Data-driven Optimal Adaptive Fault-tolerant Control for Autonomous Driving us- ing Learning-based SMPC. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2024)

2024
[11]

Expert Systems with Applications 224(Aug 2023)

Min, H., Fang, Y ., Wu, X., Lei, X., Chen, S., Teixeira, R., Zhu, B., Zhao, X., Xu, Z.: A fault diagnosis framework for autonomous vehicles with sensor self-diagnosis. Expert Systems with Applications 224(Aug 2023)

2023
[12]

Orf, S.: SUBJ - Subjective Logic Library (2025),https: //github.com/fzi-forschungszentrum-informatik/ SUBJ/

2025
[13]

In: 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP)

Orf, S., Lambing, N., Ochs, S., Zofka, M.R., Z ¨ollner, J.M.: Modeling Localization Uncertainty for Enhanced Robustness of Automated Vehicles. In: 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP). pp. 175–182 (Sep 2022)

2022
[14]

In: 2024 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP)

Orf, S., Ochs, S., Doll, J., Schotschneider, A., Heinrich, M., Zofka, M.R., Z¨ollner, J.M.: Modular Fault Diagnosis Framework for Complex Autonomous Driving Systems. In: 2024 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP). IEEE, ...

2024
[15]

In: 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC)

Poggenhans, F., Pauls, J.H., Janosovits, J., Orf, S., Naumann, M., Kuhnt, F., Mayr, M.: Lanelet2: A high-definition map framework for the future of automated driving. In: 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). pp. 1672–1679 (2018)

2018
[16]

International Journal of Automotive Technology22(2), 529–535 (Apr 2021)

Seo, K., Lee, J., Lee, J.y., Yi, K.: Fail Safe Process of Vehicle Lo- calization for Reliability Improvement of LV3 Autonomous Driving. International Journal of Automotive Technology22(2), 529–535 (Apr 2021)

2021
[17]

In: 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Conference (ITSC)

Shen, Y ., Xia, C., Jian, Z., Chen, S., Zheng, N.: An Integrated Localization System with Fault Detection, Isolation and Recovery for Autonomous Vehicles. In: 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Conference (ITSC). pp. 84–91. IEEE, Indianapolis, IN, USA...

2021
[18]

Scientific Reports13(1) (Aug 2023)

Stockem Novo, A., H ¨urten, C., Baumann, R., Sieberg, P.: Self- evaluation of automated vehicles based on physics, state-of-the-art motion prediction and user experience. Scientific Reports13(1) (Aug 2023)

2023
[19]

IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 19(4), 2738–2749 (Oct 2022)

Wang, H., Lu, B., Li, J., Liu, T., Xing, Y ., Lv, C., Cao, D., Li, J., Zhang, J., Hashemi, E.: Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Local Path Planning for Autonomous Vehicles With LSTM Based Predictive Model. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 19(4), 2738–27...

2022
[20]

IEEE Access8(2020)

Yin, S., Kaynak, O., Reza Karimi, H.: IEEE Access Special Section Editorial: Data-Driven Monitoring, Fault Diagnosis and Control of Cyber-Physical Systems. IEEE Access8(2020)

2020
[21]

In: 2018 International Conference on Military Communications and Information Systems (ICMCIS)

Youssef, Y .M., Ota, D.: A general approach to health monitoring & fault diagnosis of unmanned ground vehicles. In: 2018 International Conference on Military Communications and Information Systems (ICMCIS). IEEE, Warsaw, Poland (May 2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems1, 176–186 (2020)

Geissler, F., Unnervik, A., Paulitsch, M.: A Plausibility-Based Fault Detection Method for High-Level Fusion Perception Systems. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems1, 176–186 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION)

Griebel, T., Heinzler, J., Buchholz, M., Dietmayer, K.: Online Per- formance Assessment of Multi-Sensor Kalman Filters Based on Sub- jective Logic. In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). IEEE, Charleston, SC, USA (Jun 2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Heinrich, M., Zipfl, M., Uecker, M., Ochs, S., Gontscharow, M., Fleck, T., Doll, J., Sch ¨orner, P., Hubschneider, C., Zofka, M.R., Viehl, A., Z¨ollner, J.M.: Cocar nextgen: a multi-purpose platform for connected autonomous driving research (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2404.17550

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Sensors23(11) (May 2023)

Hou, W., Li, W., Li, P.: Fault Diagnosis of the Autonomous Driving Perception System Based on Information Fusion. Sensors23(11) (May 2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Standard, International Electrotechnical Commission and others, Geneva, Switzerland (2018)

IEC 60812:2018: Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA). Standard, International Electrotechnical Commission and others, Geneva, Switzerland (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Standard, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzer- land (2018)

ISO 26262:2018(en): Road vehicles — functional safety. Standard, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzer- land (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Electronics13(2) (Jan 2024)

Jin, T., Zhang, C., Zhang, Y ., Yang, M., Ding, W.: A Hybrid Fault Diagnosis Method for Autonomous Driving Sensing Systems Based on Information Complexity. Electronics13(2) (Jan 2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms, Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

Jøsang, A.: Subjective Logic. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms, Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

work page 2016