Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 33 references

Toward an Agricultural Operational Design Domain: A Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A process layer makes farm-robot safety boundaries describable and verifiable.

desk verdict A genuinely useful synthesis for agricultural ODDs, but the verification loop is self-referential and the abstract's completeness claim outruns what the paper actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.02937 v2 pith:MDXYLSK6 submitted 2025-11-04 cs.RO cs.SEcs.SYeess.SY

Mirco Felske , Jannik Redenius , Georg Happich , Julius Schöning This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.SEcs.SYeess.SY
keywords agriculturalautonomyoperationaldesigndomainAg-ODDlogicalscenarios7-layermodelprocesslayercondition-dependentvariablesverification
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

The paper argues that existing operational design domain (ODD) concepts from road vehicles cannot capture agricultural autonomy, because farm work is not just driving: the machine's job changes the field as it operates. It introduces the Ag-ODD Framework, combining a structured description concept with permissive/restrictive attributes and levels of detail, a 7-layer scenario model with an added process layer, and an iterative verification process. The central claim is that starting from use cases, functional requirements, system capabilities, and hazard analysis results, a manufacturer can derive an Ag-ODD whose boundaries are unambiguous, then verify it against logical scenarios until no further modifications are needed. If right, this provides a traceable route from use case to a safety-relevant definition of where autonomous farm machinery may operate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the condition-dependent variable (CDV): a triple of start attribute, triggering condition, and end attribute that lets a process be described without inventing new attributes, since the process is a transition between states already present in other categories. This is paired with the 7-Layer Model, which adds a process layer to the usual six scenario layers, and with permissive/restrictive attribute properties plus level-of-detail refinements, which together decide what is included in an Ag-ODD. The CDV carries the agricultural content of the framework; the permissive/restrictive logic and level-of-detail carry the unambiguous specification part.

What would settle it

Give the same Ag-ODD and use case to two independent teams and ask each to derive logical scenarios until they judge the Ag-ODD verified; if the final Ag-ODDs differ in which attributes are restrictive, the verification process is not reproducible. Alternatively, find a single field-state change that cannot be expressed as a CDV with start, trigger, and end attributes drawn from existing categories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an agricultural operational design domain can be made complete and consistent by representing the agricultural process itself as part of the domain. It does this by extending the standard ODD structure with a process category built from condition-dependent variables (CDVs): a start attribute, a triggering condition, and an end attribute, all drawn from existing categories, so a field state can change from standing crop to stubble when the machine acts on it. Alongside this, the framework adds a seventh process layer to the usual six-layer scenario model, so logical scenarios can express operations that permanently alter other layers. The verification loop then iterates:

Load-bearing premise

The verification loop guarantees completeness only if the logical scenarios a user thinks of exhaustively expose every gap in the Ag-ODD; the paper's stopping criterion is 'no further scenarios can be identified,' which is inherently subjective.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Manufacturers can start from use cases and produce an Ag-ODD that is traceable to functional requirements, system capabilities, and hazard analysis results.
  • Because every attribute carries permissive/restrictive semantics and a level of detail, the same Ag-ODD can be read at different abstraction levels, supporting both simulation and certification.
  • A single Ag-ODD can contain multiple sub-Ag-ODDs for different functions (e.g., driving versus implement control), linked through process definitions.
  • Logical scenarios derived from the 7-layer model can intentionally push beyond Ag-ODD boundaries to test the function's behavior at and outside its limits.
  • The iterative verification loop reaches a stable state in which the Ag-ODD is considered verified against the available scenario set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The completeness claim is bounded by the scenario set; the paper's own stopping rule is subjective, so two users could stop at different Ag-ODDs. A stricter version would need explicit coverage metrics over the parameter space.
  • Editorial inference: The CDV mechanism suggests an automatic consistency check: if every end attribute of one CDV is a start attribute of another, process chains can be validated as connected state machines.
  • Editorial inference: The framework could transfer to other domains where robots alter their environment, such as mining, forestry, or construction.
  • Editorial inference: A testable extension would be to generate logical scenarios from a systematic sweep over layer values and measure the fraction of parameter combinations not yet covered by scenarios.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for defining and verifying an Agricultural Operational Design Domain (Ag-ODD) for autonomous agricultural machinery. The framework has three core elements: an Ag-ODD description concept that adapts ASAM OpenODD and CityGML, adding condition-dependent variables (CDVs) to represent process-induced state changes; a 7-Layer Model that extends the PEGASUS 6-Layer Model with a process layer; and an iterative verification process that compares an initial Ag-ODD with logical scenarios derived from the 7-Layer Model. The authors demonstrate the framework on two constructed use cases—autonomous cultivation and wheat harvesting—showing how iterative scenario comparison refines attributes such as geographic scope, slope limits, and object types. The central claim is that this process 'ensures the Ag-ODD's completeness and consistency.'

Significance. The work addresses a real gap: none of the reviewed standards (SAE J3016, PEGASUS, ASAM OpenODD, EMESRT, NATO AMSP-06, CityGML, etc.) captures the process-oriented nature of agricultural operations, where the working task itself alters the field state. The process layer and CDV concept are natural and useful extensions, and grounding the description in ASAM OpenODD and CityGML promotes interoperability. The paper is transparent about the illustrative, non-exhaustive nature of the demonstrations and explicitly states that modifications are assumed to be justified. If the framework's verification claim could be substantiated, it would provide manufacturers with a systematic, standards-aligned way to derive Ag-ODDs. However, the paper does not supply a formal semantics for its attribute/LoD logic, nor does it provide an external coverage metric or an independent scenario-generation method; the current evidence supports the framework as a structured proposal rather than as a verified methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract states that the framework 'ensures the Ag-ODD's completeness and consistency', but the verification loop's stopping rule is self-referential: 'The Ag-ODD can be considered verified once no further logical scenarios can be identified that would necessitate modifications to it' (§5.2). Both the Ag-ODD and the logical scenarios are produced by the same user from the same use case, and no independent coverage metric or formal enumeration procedure is defined. In the demonstrations, the 'verification' consists of the authors noticing boundary violations in six hand-written scenarios per use case; the cultivation scenarios never exercise Layer 6, so a GNSS-outage scenario would require a modification the published iteration missed. The paper even concedes only 'nearly gapless' Ag-ODDs (§5.2), which contradicts the abstract's 'ensures'. The claim should either be weakened to 'suppo
  2. [§4.2, permissive/restrictive and LoD semantics] The framework's 'unambiguous' description claim is not supported by the formal semantics of its attribute model. The default rule—'treat the entire Ag-ODD as restrictive... as soon as an attribute is mentioned, all of its unmentioned sub-attributes are included'—makes every mentioned attribute permissive, while an attribute 'becomes restrictive' only 'when it is unambiguous', a condition that is never defined. The LoD examples ('green tractors under 200 kW') do not specify how sub-attribute refinement interacts with the permissive/restrictive flag at different levels. This ambiguity means two users can interpret Tables 1 and 2 differently (e.g., is 'Humans ≥2 m' restrictive or permissive? The Type column does not always resolve it). Without a formal semantics or decision procedure, the central claim of an 'unambiguous' Ag-ODD is not established.
  3. [§5.1 demonstrations] The two use cases are labeled 'highly simplified' and are not intended to yield complete Ag-ODDs, yet they are the only evidence for the framework's utility. No coverage metric is defined, no independent scenario generator is used, and no comparison against an existing ODD methodology is made. The process iterates only twice (cultivation) or three times (harvesting), with modifications such as narrowing 'Fields in Europe' to 'Fields in GER' and adding 'No dust' based on scenario inspection. Such ad hoc refinements do not demonstrate convergence; the authors themselves note the process yields 'nearly gapless' Ag-ODDs (§5.2). An evaluation with independent scenario generation, quantitative coverage measures, or a formal convergence proof is required to support the framework's central claims.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.2, bullet 1] The phrase 'may exceed48 m' is missing a space before '48 m'.
  2. [§4.1.1] 'stilling a wheat stubble field' — typo for 'tilling'.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 3] 'dynamic onject' — typo for 'dynamic object'.
  4. [§4.3] 'the 3th layer' — should be '3rd layer'.
  5. [§5.1.1, Scenario 2] 'in the foothills of ≤10 % of the Austrian Alps' is ungrammatical; please rephrase.
  6. [§5.1.1, Scenario 5] 'in an urban in Denmark' — likely 'in an urban area in Denmark'.
  7. [Table 1 and §5.1.1] The spelling 'Traktor X' is used in the table while the text uses 'Tractor X'; please unify.
  8. [Throughout] The manuscript uses both 'ASAM Open ODD' and 'ASAM OpenODD'; please standardize the terminology.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Verification loop is self-referential: §5.2's stopping rule defines 'verified' as absence of user-identified scenarios, so the abstract's 'ensures completeness and consistency' is not an external guarantee.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, General Considerations and Fundamental Recommendations]
    "The Ag-ODD can be considered verified once no further logical scenarios can be identified that would necessitate modifications to it."

    This defines 'verified' as the absence of further logical scenarios identified by the user. But those logical scenarios are not an external oracle: Section 4.3 derives them from the same use cases via the framework's own 7-Layer Model, and Section 4.1.6 says the framework 'concludes with the iterative verification process that ensures consistency and completeness between the Ag-ODD and its corresponding logical scenarios.' The abstract's 'ensures completeness and consistency' therefore reduces to a self-consistency check against the framework's own scenario generator. A scenario the user does not identify cannot trigger a modification, so the stopping rule cannot certify completeness relative to anything outside that generator.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, Iterative Verification Process, Final Iteration]
    "At the same time, parameter spaces for which no valid scenarios exist, such as those that exceed the system's capabilities, are removed from the Ag-ODD definition. This results in the creation of explicit restrictive ∩ limits."

    The final Ag-ODD boundaries are fitted to the scenario set: regions are removed when 'no valid scenarios exist,' and the resulting boundaries are then declared verified. But 'valid scenarios' are exactly the scenarios generated inside the framework's own loop (use case → 7-Layer Model → logical scenarios). The paper provides no independent enumeration, coverage metric, or formal semantics for attributes/LoD; the demonstrations use hand-written 'lingual' scenarios. Thus the 'verified' Ag-ODD is, by construction, a mirror of the user-generated scenario set and cannot expose gaps that the scenario author never imagined.

full rationale

The framework's descriptive content is largely independent: it adapts ASAM OpenODD, CityGML's LoD, and the PEGASUS 6-Layer Model, and adds an agricultural process layer. That part is a genuine synthesis, not circular. The circularity is confined to the verification/completeness claim. Both artifacts being compared—the Ag-ODD and the logical scenarios—are produced inside the same framework from the same use cases, and the stopping rule is explicitly 'no further logical scenarios can be identified.' This is a self-referential criterion, not an external benchmark. The paper even concedes 'nearly gapless' in Section 5.2, yet the abstract claims the process 'ensure[s] the Ag-ODD's completeness and consistency'; the gap is filled only by the subjective termination rule. Section 5.1.1 adds that modification reasons are 'implicitly assumed for each modification,' so the demonstrated iterations are not independently auditable. The repeated author self-citations (Happich et al. 2025a,b; Schöning et al. 2024) appear in motivation and standards-alignment passages and are not load-bearing for the derivation chain, so they do not further raise the score. The central framework retains independent content, but the verification claim itself is partially circular, yielding a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on transfer assumptions from automotive/urban ODD standards to agriculture, on the completeness of scenario generation, and on a self-referential verification stopping rule. The illustrative thresholds are hand-picked and do not constitute fitted parameters in a scientific sense, but they are the only numbers in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced; the invented entities are conceptual modeling constructs with no independent empirical handle.

free parameters (1)
  • Illustrative Ag-ODD thresholds = e.g., slope ≤10%, cultivation depth ≤15 cm, visibility ≥50 m, grain moisture ≤y%, distance ≥D
    Chosen by hand for the two constructed use cases to illustrate the framework; they are not derived from measurements, standards, or system data and are not used to predict anything.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ASAM OpenODD's hierarchical ontology provides a sufficient basis for unambiguous agricultural description.
    Section 4.2 adopts ASAM OpenODD structure without demonstrating that its semantics transfer to off-road, process-heavy agricultural settings.
  • domain assumption Logical scenarios derived from the 7-Layer Model can uncover all relevant gaps in an Ag-ODD.
    The verification process (Sections 4.3-4.4) assumes scenario generation can eventually cover the Ag-ODD and expose boundary violations.
  • ad hoc to paper The subjective termination criterion 'no further logical scenarios can be identified' is a reliable indicator of completeness.
    Stated verbatim in Section 5.2; it is self-referential and provides no constructive method to enumerate or bound the scenario space.
  • domain assumption Framing limitations (functional requirements, system capabilities, HARA) are available and consistent for each use case.
    The paper treats these as inputs to Ag-ODD derivation but explicitly says their precise determination is 'beyond the scope of this publication' (Section 5.1.1).
  • domain assumption Prior self-cited works establish the urgent need and the validation context.
    Happich et al. 2025a,b, Schöning et al. 2024, and Komesker et al. 2024 are cited as evidence of the unmet need; these are same-group publications, but the core framework does not depend on their specific empirical results.
invented entities (3)
  • Ag-ODD (Agricultural Operational Design Domain) concept
    purpose: Structured description of operational boundaries for autonomous agricultural machinery.
    Conceptual artifact; no external falsifiable measurement is offered; demonstration is through constructed tables.
  • 7-Layer Model (process layer added to PEGASUS 6-Layer Model)
    purpose: Captures agricultural processes that alter the environment in logical scenarios.
    Modeling construct; not empirically validated, no independent data or implementation.
  • Condition-dependent variables (CDV)
    purpose: Represent state transitions (start attribute, triggering condition, end attribute) within the process category.
    Formal device introduced for describing process-induced changes; only illustrative examples are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward an Agricultural Operational Design Domain: A Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDXYLSK6

@misc{pith2026251102937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward an Agricultural Operational Design Domain: A Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDXYLSK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.02937}
}
read the original abstract

The agricultural sector increasingly relies on autonomous systems that operate in complex and variable environments. Unlike on-road applications, agricultural automation integrates driving and working processes, each of which imposes distinct operational constraints. Handling this complexity and ensuring consistency throughout the development and validation processes requires a structured, transparent, and verified description of the environment. However, existing Operational Design Domain (ODD) concepts do not yet address the unique challenges of agricultural applications. Therefore, this work introduces the Agricultural ODD (Ag-ODD) Framework, which can be used to describe and verify the operational boundaries of autonomous agricultural systems. The Ag-ODD Framework consists of three core elements. First, the Ag-ODD description concept, which provides a structured method for unambiguously defining environmental and operational parameters using concepts from ASAM Open ODD and CityGML. Second, the 7-Layer Model derived from the PEGASUS 6-Layer Model, has been extended to include a process layer to capture dynamic agricultural operations. Third, the iterative verification process verifies the Ag-ODD against its corresponding logical scenarios, derived from the 7-Layer Model, to ensure the Ag-ODD's completeness and consistency. Together, these elements provide a consistent approach for creating unambiguous and verifiable Ag-ODD. Demonstrative use cases show how the Ag-ODD Framework can support the standardization and scalability of environmental descriptions for autonomous agricultural systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multiple dimensions of automation in agriculture: The individual degree of automation can be defined both for the driving task according to SAE J3016 (2021) and for the working process according to ISO 18497 (2024) of the machine or device. components: the Ag-ODD and the 7-Layer Model which is in turn based on the 6-Layer Model from PEGASUS. The fourth component is the iterative verification process, which verifies … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Ag-ODD Framework for deriving the agricultural operational design domain (Ag-ODD). The initial Ag-ODD 2 and its associated logical scenarios 3 are derived from the defined use cases 1 . Once these are established, the iterative verification process 4 begins. During this process, inconsistencies and gaps within the Ag-ODD definition are often exposed by the logical scenarios. Any resulting modifications must then… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Agricultural Operational Design Domain (Ag-ODD) 2 concept. The derivation is done from the following three values: I) functional requirements, II) system capabilities, and III) the results of the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) as framing limitation. The Ag-ODD is composed of four primary categories: the process , the scenery , the environmental condition, and the dynamic objects . In addition, each a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 7-Layer Model is designed for use in agricultural scenarios and can be used to derive logical scenarios, including agricultural processes from use cases. The 7-Layer Model comprises the six PEGASUS layers (PEGASUS Project Office, 2021) with slight modifications, as…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Iterative verification process 4 between the Ag-ODD 2 and the logical scenarios 3 . A predefined Ag-ODD, as drawn as dark blue hexagon, means that the Ag-ODD is not yet well enough defined or that there are not yet enough scenarios. As soon as the scenarios cover the e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Logical scenarios 3 derived using the 7-Layer Model are presented here, in the example use case of cultivating; these six different visualized scenarios are used during interactive verification 4 . The visualizations (a) to (f) are AI-generated images. Someone very tal…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Logical scenarios 3 derived using the 7-layer Model are presented here, in the example use case of wheat harvesting; these six different visualized scenarios are used during interactive verification 4 . The visualizations (a) to (f) are AI-generated images. 5.2. Genera…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introducing OpenPLX – an open-source language for simulation and autonomy, 2024 a

    Algoryx SE . Introducing OpenPLX – an open-source language for simulation and autonomy, 2024 a . URL https://www.algoryx.se/introducing-openplx-an-open-source-language-for-autonomy/

    2024

  2. [2]

    OpenPLX Syntax and Concepts , 2024 b

    Algoryx SE . OpenPLX Syntax and Concepts , 2024 b . URL https://openplx.org/discover/

    2024

  3. [3]

    OpenPLX , 2025

    Algoryx Simulation AB . OpenPLX , 2025. URL https://openplx.org/

    2025

  4. [4]

    Guidance for standards applicable to the development of next generation NATO reference mobility models (NG-NRMM) , 2021

    AMSP-06 . Guidance for standards applicable to the development of next generation NATO reference mobility models (NG-NRMM) , 2021. URL https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1148004.pdf. NATO Standardization Office

    2021

  5. [5]

    ASAM e. V. ASAM OpenXOntology , 2021. URL https://www.asam.net/standards/asam-openxontology/

    2021

  6. [6]

    ASAM e. V. ASAM OSI , 2024. URL https://www.asam.net/standards/detail/osi/

    2024

  7. [7]

    Baillie, L

    C. Baillie, L. Torrance, D. Long, P. Brett, and J. Humpal. Review of technologies, regulations and operating standards for field based autonomous agricultural machinery. Technical report, 2020. URL https://research.usq.edu.au/download/639a32646c2012c44694836cf39b17a5c926171bb7392fbe4226d1d1ce20567b/9997766/GRDC-USQ-Autonomy-Technical-Review.pdf

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Biljecki, H

    F. Biljecki, H. Ledoux, and J. Stoter. An improved lod specification for 3d building models. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 59: 0 25--37, Sept. 2016. ISSN 0198-9715. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.005 2016

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Performance requirement-5a, 2024

    EMESRT . Performance requirement-5a, 2024. URL https://www.emesrt.org/wp-content/uploads/PerformanceRequirement-5A.pdf

    2024

  2. [10]

    Groger, T

    G. Groger, T. H. Kolbe, A. Czerwinski, and C. Nagel. OpenGIS city geography markup language (CityGML) encoding standard. version 1.0. 0. 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Happich, A

    G. Happich, A. Grever, and J. Schöning. Agricultural industry initiatives on autonomy: How collaborative initiatives of VDMA and AEF can facilitate complexity in domain crossing harmonization needs. arXiv, 2025 a . doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2501.17962

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Happich, N

    G. Happich, N. Hummel, M. Komesker, M. Felske, and C. Meltebrink. Standardized testing of sensor-based object detection for autonomous agricultural machinery. In Land.Technik AgEng 2025 . VDI Verlag , 2025 b

    2025

  5. [13]

    R. He, C. Sandu, H. Mousavi, M. N. Shenvi, K. Braun, R. Kruger, and P. S. Els. Updated standards of the international society for terrain-vehicle systems. Journal of Terramechanics, 91: 0 185--231, Oct. 2020. ISSN 0022-4898. doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2020.06.007

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J. Hindman. Die Z eit f \"u r A utonomie in L andmaschinen ist gekommen, 2024. URL https://www.vdi-wissensforum.de/news/die-zeit-fuer-autonomie-in-landmaschinen-ist-gekommen/

    2024

  7. [15]

    Agricultural machinery and tractors — safety of partially automated, semi-autonomous and autonomous machinery, 2024

    ISO 18497 . Agricultural machinery and tractors — safety of partially automated, semi-autonomous and autonomous machinery, 2024. International Organization for Standardization

    2024

  8. [16]

    Road vehicles -- safety of the intended functionality, 2022

    ISO 21448 . Road vehicles -- safety of the intended functionality, 2022. International Organization for Standardization

    2022

  9. [17]

    Road vehicles functional safety, 2018

    ISO 26262 . Road vehicles functional safety, 2018. International Organization for Standardization

    2018

  10. [18]

    Road vehicles -- test scenarios for automated driving systems -- specification for operational design domain, 2023

    ISO 34503 . Road vehicles -- test scenarios for automated driving systems -- specification for operational design domain, 2023. International Organization for Standardization

    2023

  11. [19]

    T. Jacobs. Validierung der funktionalen sicherheit bei der mobilen manipulation mit servicerobotern, 2013. URL https://www.ipa.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ipa/de/documents/Projekte/Forschungsprojekte/VaSiMa_Validierung_Serviceroboter_Anwenderleitfaden.pdf. Fraunhofer-Institut fü...

    2013

  12. [20]

    T. H. Kolbe. Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML . In 3D Geo-Information Sciences , pages 15--31. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87395-2_2

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Komesker and C

    M. Komesker and C. Meltebrink. Talk: E inblick in die wissenschaftlichen V orarbeiten & F orschungsergebnisse des F orschungsprojektes Agro-Safety , Apr. 2025. 5. Sitzung der Task Force Sensorsystemtestung zur Objekterkennung zum Schutz von Personen - VDMA Waldkirch

    2025

  14. [22]

    Komesker, C

    M. Komesker, C. Meltebrink, S. Ebenhöch, Y. Zahner, M. Vlasic, and S. Stiene. Validation scores to evaluate the detection capability of sensor systems used for autonomous machines in outdoor environments. Electronics, 13 0 (12): 0 2396, 2024. doi:10.3390/electronics13122396

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Kruse and J

    N. Kruse and J. Schöning. Legal conform data sets for yard tractors and robots. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 223: 0 109106, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.109106

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kutzner, K

    T. Kutzner, K. Chaturvedi, and T. H. Kolbe. CityGML 3.0 : New functions open up new applications. PFG--Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science, 88 0 (1): 0 43--61, 2020. ISSN 2512-2819. doi:10.1007/s41064-020-00095-z

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    OGC city geography markup language ( CityGML ) part 1: Conceptual model standard, 2021

    Open Geospatial Consortium . OGC city geography markup language ( CityGML ) part 1: Conceptual model standard, 2021. URL https://docs.ogc.org/is/20-010/20-010.html. OGC - Open Geospatial Consortium

    2021

  18. [26]

    CityGML , 2025

    Open Geospatial Consortium . CityGML , 2025. URL https://www.ogc.org/standards/citygml/

    2025

  19. [27]

    Pegasus method, 2021

    PEGASUS Project Office . Pegasus method, 2021. URL https://www.pegasusprojekt.de/files/tmpl/Pegasus-Abschlussveranstaltung/PEGASUS-Gesamtmethode.pdf

    2021

  20. [28]

    Petrova-Antonova, S

    D. Petrova-Antonova, S. Malinov, L. Mrosla, and A. Petrov. Towards a conceptual model of CityGML 3.0 vegetation ADE . The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVIII-4/W10-2024: 0 155--161, 2024. doi:10.5194/isprs-archi...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles, 2021

    SAE J3016 . Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles, 2021. SAE International

    2021

  22. [30]

    Schöning and N

    J. Schöning and N. Kruse. Operational design domains and dynamic driving tasks for both off- and on-road agricultural use cases. In Informatik in der Land-, Forst-und Ern \"a hrungswirtschaft-Fokus: Digitale Infrastrukturen für eine nachhaltige Land-, Forst- und Ernährungswirt...

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Schöning, N

    J. Schöning, N. Kruse, M. Komesker, D. Barrelmeyer, and S. Stiene. Applicable safety tests for automated agricultural machinery and robots: Operational design domains and dynamic driving tasks as key to functional safety. In Land.Technik 2024 , pages 341--346. VDI Verlag , 202...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Streitberger, F

    N. Streitberger, F. Balbach, and E. Nacke. Vom manuellen F ahren zur vollen A utonomie: E in A nsatz zur systematischen D efinition verschiedener S tufen der A utomation in der L andtechnik , pages 213--222. VDI Verlag, 2018. doi:10.51202/9783181023327-213

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Tauber, S

    A. Tauber, S. Röttgermann, and A. Grever. Guiding principles and challenges in the context of environment perception and geofencing in the agricultural application domain. In Land.Technik 2024 , pages 7--14. VDI Verlag, 2024. doi:10.51202/9783181024447-7

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.