Method and device for testing and evaluating starting reminding function of front vehicle of vehicle

Abstract

The invention relates to a front vehicle starting reminding function test and evaluation method and device, and relates to the technical field of front vehicle starting reminding function test. According to the invention, test equipment is constructed by using a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master-slave inertial navigation equipment and an industrial personal computer; wherein a master inertial navigation device for testing is configured for the test vehicle, and a slave inertial navigation device for testing is configured for at least one reference vehicle; for any combination of the test vehicle and the reference vehicle, performing relative calibration on the master and slave inertial navigation equipment to compensate errors between the inertial navigation equipment; combining the starting scene and the reference vehicle starting condition to obtain a test condition of a front vehicle starting reminding function of the vehicle; according to each test condition, executing a front vehicle starting reminding function test of the vehicle, and obtaining a front vehicle starting reminding function test evaluation index of the vehicle; and creating a quantitative comprehensive evaluation model to perform evaluation based on the evaluation index of the vehicle preceding vehicle starting reminding function test so as to obtain a quantifiable objective evaluation result of the vehicle preceding vehicle starting reminding function test.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of vehicle front vehicle start reminder function testing technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for testing and evaluating the vehicle front vehicle start reminder function. Background Technology

[0002] With the continuous advancement of automotive technology, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are being used more and more widely in vehicles. The Lead Vehicle Start-Up Warning (LTW) function, a practical feature of ADAS, can alert the driver of the vehicle ahead to follow the vehicle's start-up in scenarios such as traffic congestion and intersections where the vehicle in front has temporarily stopped and is starting again. This is achieved through visual, auditory, or tactile signals, aiming to improve traffic efficiency and reduce start-up delays caused by driver distraction.

[0003] Currently, there is no unified and reliable standard in the industry for testing and evaluating the preceding vehicle start-up alert function. Common testing methods include real-vehicle testing and simulation testing. Real-vehicle testing involves testing vehicles equipped with the preceding vehicle start-up alert function in usage scenarios such as congested roads and traffic light intersections, mainly testing the triggering of the function, including normal triggering and false triggering. However, without quantifiable and detailed evaluation indicators, it is difficult to directly compare the performance of different systems. Simulation testing uses simulation software and tools such as CANOE to create simulated scenarios and sensor models, injecting virtual signals into the preceding vehicle start-up alert system to simulate preceding vehicle start-up scenarios under different environments and testing the system's function triggering. Simulation results may deviate from actual conditions and need to be verified in conjunction with real-vehicle testing. However, the lack of a unified standard for testing the preceding vehicle start-up alert function makes it difficult to directly compare the performance of different systems. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In order to solve the above-mentioned technical problems, or at least partially solve the above-mentioned technical problems, and in view of the above-mentioned shortcomings, the present invention provides a method and apparatus for testing and evaluating the vehicle's forward start reminder function.

[0005] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method for testing and evaluating a vehicle's preceding vehicle start-up reminder function, comprising: The test equipment consists of a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master and slave inertial navigation systems (INS) and an industrial control computer. The test vehicle is equipped with a master INS for testing, and at least one reference vehicle is equipped with a slave INS for testing. For any combination of test vehicle and reference vehicle, the master and slave INS are calibrated relative to each other to compensate for errors between the INS. The test scenario for the vehicle's preceding vehicle start reminder function was obtained by combining the starting scenario and the starting conditions of the reference vehicle. According to the various test scenarios, the scenario setup and parameter settings are carried out to perform the vehicle ahead start reminder function test and obtain the vehicle ahead start reminder function test evaluation indicators. The vehicle ahead start reminder function test evaluation indicators include: reminder response time, reminder false response rate, reminder missed response rate and consistency of reminder function response range. A quantitative comprehensive evaluation model was created to evaluate the vehicle's forward start reminder function based on the test evaluation indicators.

[0006] Furthermore, the construction and testing equipment for the test vehicle, reference vehicle, master-slave inertial navigation system (INS), and industrial control computer includes: selecting commercially available mass-produced vehicles as test and reference vehicles, ensuring their braking and power systems are normal, with the test vehicle required to be equipped with the preceding vehicle start-up reminder function to be evaluated; the reference vehicle models are diverse; a master INS is configured for testing on the test vehicle, and a slave INS is configured for testing on at least one reference vehicle; communication is set up between the INS and the test vehicle's vehicle controller and the industrial control computer, with the industrial control computer synchronously receiving data from the INS and collecting vehicle CAN data to obtain vehicle status and the response status of the preceding vehicle start-up reminder function; for any combination of test and reference vehicles, the master-slave INS is relatively calibrated to compensate for errors between the INS.

[0007] Furthermore, for any combination of test vehicle and reference vehicle, the master and slave inertial navigation systems will be relatively calibrated to compensate for errors between the inertial navigation systems, including: The test vehicle and each reference vehicle were parked statically on a flat, open field. A field coordinate system was constructed, in which a set distance was maintained between the two vehicles, and the vehicles were arranged in a straight line to simulate following the vehicle. Use a total station to accurately measure and mark the true three-dimensional coordinates of the GNSS antenna phase centers of the main inertial navigation equipment on the test vehicle and the slave inertial navigation equipment on the reference vehicle in the field plane coordinate system; calculate the relative vector between the true three-dimensional coordinates. With the vehicle stationary, the master and slave inertial navigation devices work synchronously, enter the RTK-Fixed fixed solution state and stabilize for a period of time. After the master and slave inertial navigation devices acquire their respective measurement positions, they calculate the relative vector between the two measurement positions. The error vector is calculated using the relative vector between the two inertial navigation devices and the relative vector between the two measurement positions, and the compensation vector is obtained by inverting the error vector.

[0008] Furthermore, the starting scenarios include: traffic crossing scenarios at traffic lights on urban roads, queuing scenarios at toll stations on urban expressways / highways, and following other vehicles in congested traffic; the roads in each scenario are considered to be curved and straight, uphill, downhill and flat, as well as interference objects; The starting behavior of the vehicle in front includes: the vehicle in front starts normally and smoothly, the vehicle in front accelerates rapidly, the vehicle in front starts slowly and creeps along, and the vehicle in front stops immediately after moving slightly.

[0009] Furthermore, the alert response time is obtained by subtracting the time when the reference vehicle begins to move from the time when the preceding vehicle's start-up alert function issues a clear alarm signal. During the test period, the proportion of times an alarm should not have been triggered but was falsely triggered out of the total number of tests is used as the false alarm response rate. During the test period, the proportion of times an alarm was not triggered within the specified time after the preceding vehicle had clearly started and met the alarm conditions is used as the missed alarm response rate. The ability to trigger a response stably and consistently under different test conditions is used to determine the response range of the alert function.

[0010] Furthermore, the calculation process for the reminder response time includes: obtaining the moment when the reference vehicle begins to move, which can be determined by analyzing the acceleration data of the reference vehicle's inertial navigation equipment and when the acceleration of the reference vehicle continuously exceeds a preset starting threshold; and obtaining the moment when the test vehicle's preceding vehicle's starting reminder function issues a clear alarm signal.

[0011] Furthermore, the quantitative comprehensive evaluation model pre-defines the mapping relationship between the evaluation indicators and scores of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test, obtains the scores of the measured evaluation indicators of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test based on the mapping relationship, and obtains the overall score of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test by combining the scores of the evaluation indicators of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test.

[0012] Furthermore, the mapping relationship between the evaluation indicators and scores for the vehicle's forward start reminder function test for each vehicle includes: If the reminder response time is less than the set first time threshold, the first score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the first time threshold but less than the second time threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the second time threshold but less than the third time threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the third time threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the false response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first false response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the first false response rate threshold but does not exceed the second false response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the second false response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the reminder missed response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first missed response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the first missed response rate threshold but does not exceed the second missed response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the second missed response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. The function responds normally and stably in all design start-up scenarios, earning the first score; the function exhibits unstable or intermittent missing responses only in some set start-up scenarios, earning the third score; the function exhibits stable missing responses in typical scenarios, earning the fifth score; the function fails completely in multiple start-up scenarios, earning 0 points.

[0013] Furthermore, by comparing and analyzing the test results under different test scenarios and conditions, we can identify existing problems and deficiencies; based on the evaluation results, we can propose optimization suggestions for the preceding vehicle start reminder function.

[0014] Secondly, the present invention provides a vehicle preceding vehicle start-up warning function testing and evaluation device, comprising: a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, a communication module, an industrial control computer, a main inertial navigation device, and a slave inertial navigation device; the industrial control computer is connected to the vehicle controller of the test vehicle through the communication module, and is connected to the main inertial navigation device and the slave inertial navigation device; the industrial control computer includes at least one processing unit, the processing unit is connected to a storage unit through a bus unit, the storage unit stores a computer program, and the processing unit implements the vehicle preceding vehicle start-up warning function testing and evaluation method according to any one of claims 1-9 by running the computer program stored in the storage unit.

[0015] The technical solutions provided in the embodiments of the present invention have the following advantages compared with the prior art: This invention systematically designs various starting scenarios, including traffic light intersections, congested roads, highway entrances, curves, and slopes, and designs starting settings for various reference vehicles, combining them to form diverse test scenarios. This makes the performance evaluation of the vehicle ahead starting reminder function more comprehensive, and can truly reflect the system's adaptability and robustness in real road environments, and discover potential problems that cannot be exposed in single-scenario testing.

[0016] This application establishes a quantitative comprehensive evaluation model for testing vehicle start-up warning functions, encompassing four dimensions: response speed, accuracy, adaptability, and range. This model transforms subjective performance perceptions into objective data scores, making horizontal comparisons between different systems intuitive and fair. It helps developers quickly identify system bottlenecks and provides clear quantitative basis for optimizing algorithms and adjusting parameters for the vehicle start-up warning function.

[0017] This application addresses the highly reproducible and standardized testing process for the vehicle's forward start indication function. Due to the use of high-precision inertial navigation equipment and standardized testing conditions, this invention exhibits excellent repeatability. Highly consistent test results can be obtained for the same system at different times, locations, and by different operators. This is crucial for product quality control, version iteration comparison, and the establishment of industry standards. Attached Figure Description

[0018] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form part of this specification, illustrate embodiments consistent with the invention and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention.

[0019] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, for those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0020] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of a typical test scenario provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a vehicle fore-start reminder function testing and evaluation device provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 A flowchart illustrating a method for testing and evaluating a vehicle's forward start reminder function, provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 A flowchart illustrating the construction of a test device using a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master-slave inertial navigation equipment, and an industrial control computer, provided for embodiments of the present invention; Figure 5 This is a flowchart provided by an embodiment of the present invention, showing how to perform relative calibration of master and slave inertial navigation devices for any combination of test vehicle and reference vehicle to compensate for errors between inertial navigation devices. Detailed Implementation

[0021] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0022] It should be noted that, in this document, the terms include, encompass, or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that includes a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitation, an element defined by the phrase "including one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0023] Example 1 like Figure 3As shown, this invention provides a method for testing and evaluating a vehicle's forward start reminder function, the specific process of which includes: The testing equipment was constructed using a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master-slave inertial navigation equipment, and an industrial control computer. Test vehicle: refers to a vehicle equipped with a preceding vehicle start-up warning function to be tested. Test vehicles are used to simulate scenarios in daily driving where the driver of the vehicle in front starts moving and may not notice in time. Reference vehicle: refers to a vehicle that acts as the preceding vehicle in the test, simulating starting behavior.

[0024] like Figure 4 As shown, the process includes: Commercially available mass-produced vehicles were selected as test vehicles and reference vehicles to ensure that their braking and power systems were functioning properly. The test vehicles were required to be equipped with a preceding vehicle start-up reminder function to be evaluated. The reference vehicles were of various models.

[0025] A master inertial navigation system (INS) is configured for testing on the test vehicle, and a slave INS is configured for testing on at least one reference vehicle. The INS outputs high-precision latitude, longitude, altitude, speed, three-axis acceleration, roll angle, pitch angle, and heading angle data for both the test vehicle and the reference vehicles in real time. The INS employs a combined navigation system, integrating a high-precision inertial measurement unit (IMU, typically containing a three-axis gyroscope and a three-axis accelerometer) and a satellite positioning system (such as RTK-GNSS). An exemplary INS is the NovAtelSPAN-IGM-A1 combined navigation system, which includes an IMU-IGM-A1 and a GNSS receiver. The selected INS achieves centimeter-level position accuracy in RTK mode; 0.03 m / s velocity accuracy; 0.05° roll / pitch accuracy; and 0.08° heading accuracy; with a maximum data update rate of 200 Hz. The master and slave inertial navigation systems (INS) can synchronize time and exchange data via wireless communication modules (such as UWB, Wi-Fi, or a dedicated V2X link), forming a relative positioning measurement system. The master INS is installed near the center of gravity of the test vehicle, and its installation angle is rigorously calibrated. The slave INS is installed on the reference vehicle in the same manner. The master and slave INS achieve precise time synchronization via wireless communication modules such as UWB.

[0026] The communication between the inertial navigation system (INS) and the test vehicle's controller and the industrial control computer (ICC) is established. The INS is connected to the ICC for data recording and analysis. The ICC is an industrial-grade portable IC with multiple CAN interfaces, Ethernet ports, and serial ports, supporting wireless communication. The ICC performs data acquisition, including synchronously receiving data from the INS and acquiring vehicle CAN data to obtain vehicle status and the response status of the preceding vehicle's start-up reminder function. The ICC performs data analysis, including calculating all the indicators required for this invention and scoring based on these indicators. Figure 2 As shown, Figure 2The test equipment components and their connections are shown: the test vehicle (including the main inertial navigation system), the reference vehicle (including the slave inertial navigation system), the wireless communication link, and the industrial control computer used for data recording and analysis.

[0027] For any combination of test and reference vehicles, the master and slave inertial navigation systems (INS) are relatively calibrated to compensate for errors between the INS. These errors originate from the following sources: the master and slave INS are not precisely mounted at the vehicle's theoretical center of mass, and their coordinate systems have a slight angular offset from the vehicle's coordinate system; initial zero bias of the INS sensors, such as the small, constant error inherent in the IMU sensor itself; and antenna phase center deviation, such as the error caused by the misalignment of the GNSS antenna's physical center and its electronic phase center. Figure 5 As shown, the specific process includes: The test vehicle and the reference vehicle were parked stationary on a flat, open field, and a field coordinate system was constructed. The two vehicles maintained a set distance from each other and were arranged in a straight line to simulate following another vehicle.

[0028] Using a total station, the true three-dimensional coordinates P of the GNSS antenna phase center of the main inertial navigation equipment on the test vehicle in the site plane coordinate system were accurately measured and marked. mastertruth =(X mt ,Y mt Z m t).

[0029] Similarly, a total station is used to accurately measure the true three-dimensional coordinates P of the GNSS antenna phase center on the inertial navigation system of the reference vehicle in the site plane coordinate system. slavetruth =(X st ,Y st Z st ).

[0030] Calculate the relative vector D between real 3D coordinates truth : D truth =P slavetruth P mastertruth =(ΔX t ,ΔY t ,ΔZ t );ΔX t ,ΔY t ,ΔZ t X mt -X st ,Y mt -Y st Z mt -Z st .

[0031] With the vehicle stationary, synchronize the master and slave inertial navigation systems, enter the RTK-Fied state, and stabilize for a period of time (e.g., 1-2 minutes). The master inertial navigation system will then output its position P. mastermeas =(X mm ,Y mm Z mm The inertial navigation system will also output its own position P. slavemeas =(X sm ,Y sm Z sm After obtaining their respective measurement positions, the relative vector D between the two measurement positions is calculated. meas :D meas =(ΔX m ,ΔY m ,ΔZ m ). ΔX m ,ΔY m ,ΔZ m X mm -X sm ,Y mm -Y sm Z mm -Z sm .

[0032] The error vector is calculated using the relative vector between the two inertial navigation devices and the relative vector between the two measurement positions; E=D meas D truth The error vector E represents the inherent, systematic bias of the inertial navigation system during relative positioning. The compensation vector C is obtained by inverting the error vector.

[0033] The test scenario for the vehicle's preceding vehicle start reminder function was obtained by combining the starting scenario and the starting conditions of the reference vehicle.

[0034] To comprehensively evaluate the performance of the forward vehicle start-up reminder function under different real-world driving environments, this invention designs several typical start-up scenarios, including: Traffic light intersection scenario in urban areas: Simulating a situation where you are waiting at an intersection for a red light, and the car in front of you starts moving after the light turns green. Figure 1The demonstration showcases the positional relationship between the test vehicle and the reference vehicle at a traffic light at an urban intersection. The scenarios include: a city expressway / highway tollbooth queuing scenario (simulating following other vehicles in a tollbooth or congested area, with each vehicle starting and passing in turn); and a congested traffic following scenario (simulating severe congestion and frequent vehicle starts and stops). Roads in each scenario include curves and straight sections, uphill and downhill slopes, and level roads, as well as obstacles. For example, each starting scenario is further subdivided to consider factors affecting the starting reminder function: a curve starting scenario (tested on curves with a certain curvature to examine the system's performance in non-straight queues); a slope scenario (tested on uphill and downhill sections to evaluate the impact of vehicle attitude changes and gravitational acceleration components); and an obstacle scenario (tested in environments with minor bumps such as manhole covers and speed bumps, or with stationary / moving pedestrians or bicycles on the roadside).

[0035] The starting behaviors of the preceding vehicle under different starting scenarios include: normal and smooth starting, rapid acceleration starting, slow creeping starting, and "fake starting" (i.e., stopping immediately after slight movement); the initial moment of the reference vehicle's start and the preset acceleration are set for each starting behavior to form standardized test cases.

[0036] In the specific implementation process, the test scenarios also take into account weather conditions and whether it is morning or evening.

[0037] According to each test scenario, set up the scene and parameters, start the test equipment to execute the test, and obtain the test evaluation indicators of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function.

[0038] The specific process includes: parking the test vehicle and reference vehicle in the designated initial positions according to the test scenario requirements; synchronously starting the data transmission of the master and slave inertial navigation devices of the test vehicle and reference vehicle, and the vehicle controller of the test vehicle, ensuring that the front vehicle start-up reminder function of the test vehicle is in normal working condition; initializing and setting the metadata for this test in the industrial control computer, including: scenario description, tester, weather, time, etc.; the reference vehicle driver or autonomous driving system executes the start-up operation according to the preset script in the test scenario; the test vehicle remains stationary, the driver does not perform any operation, and focuses on observing and waiting for the reminder function to activate. Throughout the process, the industrial control computer synchronously collects the positioning data of the master and slave inertial navigation devices, the vehicle status issued by the test vehicle's vehicle controller, such as the accelerator pedal signal, brake signal, vehicle speed signal, etc. on the test vehicle's CAN bus, and the response status of the front vehicle start-up reminder function. Each test scenario / condition is repeated at least 10-20 times to eliminate random errors and obtain statistically reliable data. The industrial control computer filters the collected raw data (e.g., using Kalman filtering or low-pass filtering) to smooth noise and compensate for the inherent delay of the inertial navigation data. Ensure all data streams are precisely aligned on the timeline. Utilize the collected data to obtain evaluation metrics for the vehicle ahead start alert function; these metrics include: alert response time, false alert rate, missed alert rate, and consistency of the alert function's response range.

[0039] Alert response time: Obtain the moment when the reference vehicle begins to move. The moment when the reference vehicle begins to move can be determined by analyzing the acceleration data of the reference vehicle's inertial navigation system. When the acceleration of the reference vehicle continuously exceeds a preset starting threshold (e.g., 0.15 m / s²), obtain the moment when the test vehicle's preceding vehicle start reminder function issues a clear alarm signal. The alert response time is obtained by subtracting the moment when the reference vehicle begins to move from the moment when the test vehicle's preceding vehicle start reminder function issues a clear alarm signal.

[0040] False alarm response rate: During the test period, the percentage of false alarms that should not have been triggered is calculated out of the total number of tests. For example, if the system triggers an alarm when the vehicle in front has not started moving, or when there is only a slight sway that does not meet the starting conditions, this is counted as one false alarm response.

[0041] Warning missed response rate: During the test period, the number of times the preceding vehicle has clearly started and met the alarm conditions, but failed to issue an alarm within a specified time (e.g., a maximum tolerance time is set, such as 3 seconds) out of the total number of tests is used as the warning missed response rate.

[0042] Alert function response range: Statistics on whether the response can be triggered stably and consistently under different test conditions (straight lines, curves, slopes).

[0043] A quantitative comprehensive evaluation model is created based on the vehicle's front vehicle start-up warning function test evaluation indicators. The model pre-defines the mapping relationship between each vehicle's front vehicle start-up warning function test evaluation indicator and its score. Based on this mapping relationship, the measured scores of the front vehicle start-up warning function test evaluation indicators are obtained. Finally, the overall score for the vehicle's front vehicle start-up warning function test is obtained by combining the scores of all the front vehicle start-up warning function test evaluation indicators.

[0044] The mapping relationship between the various vehicle forward start reminder function test evaluation indicators and scores in the quantitative comprehensive evaluation model is as follows: If the reminder response time is less than the set first time threshold, the first score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the first time threshold but less than the second time threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the second time threshold but less than the third time threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the third time threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the false response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first false response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the first false response rate threshold but does not exceed the second false response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the second false response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the reminder missed response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first missed response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the first missed response rate threshold but does not exceed the second missed response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the second missed response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. The function responds normally and stably in all design start-up scenarios, earning the first score; the function exhibits unstable or intermittent missing responses only in some set start-up scenarios, earning the third score; the function exhibits stable missing responses in typical scenarios, earning the fifth score; the function fails completely in multiple start-up scenarios, earning 0 points.

[0045] The total score is the sum of the scores of the four indicators.

[0046] By comparing and analyzing test results under different test scenarios and conditions, problems and deficiencies are identified. Based on the evaluation results, optimization suggestions are proposed for the vehicle ahead start reminder function. During implementation, a test report is generated, including: a histogram of reminder response time distribution; distribution of false and missed reminder response rates; data curves (such as distance-time, speed-time, and alarm signal overlay graphs); a statistical table of vehicle ahead start reminder function test evaluation indicators; performance scores; and evaluation conclusions and optimization suggestions based on those conclusions.

[0047] In one implementation, a compensation method is developed for GNSS-denied environments. Other assisted positioning technologies, such as high-precision map matching, visual SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping), or roadside unit (RSU) assisted positioning, are integrated to provide a seamless positioning reference in GNSS-deprived environments, completely eliminating blind spots in test scenarios.

[0048] In summary, this invention provides an advanced, reliable, and comprehensive method for testing and evaluating the vehicle ahead start reminder function, effectively addressing current industry pain points and laying a solid foundation for the continuous technological advancement and product quality improvement of this function.

[0049] Example 2 See Figure 2 As shown, this embodiment of the invention provides a vehicle preceding vehicle start-up warning function testing and evaluation device, including: a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, a communication module, an industrial control computer, a main inertial navigation device, and a slave inertial navigation device; the industrial control computer is connected to the vehicle controller of the test vehicle through the communication module, and is connected to the main inertial navigation device and the slave inertial navigation device; the industrial control computer includes at least one processing unit, the processing unit is connected to a storage unit through a bus unit, the storage unit stores a computer program, and the processing unit implements the vehicle preceding vehicle start-up warning function testing and evaluation method by running the computer program stored in the storage unit.

[0050] Of course, the computer program stored in the storage unit of the vehicle front vehicle start reminder function test and evaluation system provided in the embodiments of the present invention is not limited to the method operation described above, and can also execute related operations in the vehicle front vehicle start reminder function test and evaluation method provided in any embodiment of the present invention.

[0051] Example 3 This invention provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. When the computer program is executed, it implements the method for testing and evaluating the vehicle ahead start reminder function.

[0052] The computer-readable storage medium provided in the embodiments of the present invention stores a computer program that is not limited to the operation of the method described above, and can also execute related operations in the vehicle front vehicle start reminder function test and evaluation method provided in any embodiment of the present invention.

[0053] In the embodiments provided by this invention, it should be understood that the disclosed structures and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the structural embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For instance, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be an indirect coupling or communication connection through some interfaces, structures, or units, and may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0054] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0055] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0056] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of the present invention, enabling those skilled in the art to understand or implement the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the present invention is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features claimed herein.

Claims

1. A method for testing and evaluating a vehicle's forward start reminder function, characterized in that, include: The test equipment consists of a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master and slave inertial navigation systems (INS) and an industrial control computer. The test vehicle is equipped with a master INS for testing, and at least one reference vehicle is equipped with a slave INS for testing. For any combination of test vehicle and reference vehicle, the master and slave INS are calibrated relative to each other to compensate for errors between the INS. The test scenario for the vehicle's preceding vehicle start reminder function was obtained by combining the starting scenario and the starting conditions of the reference vehicle. According to the various test scenarios, the scenario setup and parameter settings are carried out to perform the vehicle ahead start reminder function test and obtain the vehicle ahead start reminder function test evaluation indicators. The vehicle ahead start reminder function test evaluation indicators include: reminder response time, reminder false response rate, reminder missed response rate and consistency of reminder function response range. A quantitative comprehensive evaluation model was created to evaluate the vehicle's forward start reminder function based on the test evaluation indicators.

2. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, The test equipment, consisting of a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, master and slave inertial navigation systems (INS), and an industrial control computer, includes: selecting commercially available mass-produced vehicles as test and reference vehicles, ensuring their braking and power systems are functioning normally; the test vehicle must be equipped with the preceding vehicle start-up reminder function to be evaluated; the reference vehicle models are diverse; a master INS is configured for testing on the test vehicle, and a slave INS is configured for testing on at least one reference vehicle; communication is established between the INS, the test vehicle's vehicle controller, and the industrial control computer, with the industrial control computer synchronously receiving data from the INS and collecting vehicle CAN data to obtain vehicle status and the response status of the preceding vehicle start-up reminder function; for any combination of test and reference vehicles, the master and slave INS are relatively calibrated to compensate for errors between the INS.

3. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 2, characterized in that, For any combination of test vehicle and reference vehicle, the master and slave inertial navigation systems will be relatively calibrated to compensate for errors between the inertial navigation systems, including: The test vehicle and each reference vehicle were parked statically on a flat, open field. A field coordinate system was constructed, in which a set distance was maintained between the two vehicles, and the vehicles were arranged in a straight line to simulate following the vehicle. Use a total station to accurately measure and mark the true three-dimensional coordinates of the GNSS antenna phase centers of the main inertial navigation equipment on the test vehicle and the slave inertial navigation equipment on the reference vehicle in the field plane coordinate system; calculate the relative vector between the true three-dimensional coordinates. With the vehicle stationary, the master and slave inertial navigation devices work synchronously, enter the RTK-Fixed fixed solution state and stabilize for a period of time. After the master and slave inertial navigation devices acquire their respective measurement positions, they calculate the relative vector between the two measurement positions. The error vector is calculated using the relative vector between the two inertial navigation devices and the relative vector between the two measurement positions, and the compensation vector is obtained by inverting the error vector.

4. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, The starting scenarios include: traffic crossing at traffic lights on urban roads, queuing at toll stations on urban expressways / highways, and following other vehicles in congested traffic; the roads in each scenario include curves and straight sections, uphill roads, downhill roads, and flat roads, as well as interference objects; The starting behavior of the vehicle in front includes: the vehicle in front starts normally and smoothly, the vehicle in front accelerates rapidly, the vehicle in front starts slowly and creeps along, and the vehicle in front stops immediately after moving slightly.

5. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, The reminder response time is obtained by subtracting the time when the reference vehicle begins to move from the time when the preceding vehicle's start-up reminder function issues a clear alarm signal. During the test period, the proportion of times an alarm should not have been triggered but was falsely triggered out of the total number of tests is used as the false alarm response rate. During the test period, the proportion of times the preceding vehicle has clearly started and meets the alarm conditions but fails to issue an alarm within the specified time out of the total number of tests is used as the missed alarm response rate. The ability to consistently and stably trigger responses under different test scenarios is used to determine the response range of the alert function.

6. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 5, characterized in that, The calculation process for the alert response time includes: obtaining the moment when the reference vehicle begins to move, which can be determined by analyzing the acceleration data of the reference vehicle's inertial navigation equipment and when the acceleration of the reference vehicle continuously exceeds the preset starting threshold; obtaining the moment when the test vehicle's preceding vehicle start-up alert function issues a clear alarm signal.

7. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, The quantitative comprehensive evaluation model pre-defines the mapping relationship between the evaluation indicators and scores of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test. Based on the mapping relationship, the scores of the measured evaluation indicators of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test are obtained. The overall score of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test is obtained by combining the scores of the evaluation indicators of the vehicle's front vehicle start reminder function test.

8. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, The mapping relationship between the evaluation indicators and scores for the vehicle's forward start reminder function test includes: If the reminder response time is less than the set first time threshold, the first score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the first time threshold but less than the second time threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the second time threshold but less than the third time threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder response time is greater than or equal to the third time threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the false response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first false response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the first false response rate threshold but does not exceed the second false response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the false response rate is greater than the second false response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. If the reminder missed response rate is 0, the first score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than 0 but does not exceed the first missed response rate threshold, the second score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the first missed response rate threshold but does not exceed the second missed response rate threshold, the third score is awarded; if the reminder missed response rate is greater than the second missed response rate threshold, the fourth score is awarded. The function responds normally and stably in all design start-up scenarios, earning the first score; the function exhibits unstable or intermittent missing responses only in some set start-up scenarios, earning the third score; the function exhibits stable missing responses in typical scenarios, earning the fifth score; the function fails completely in multiple start-up scenarios, earning 0 points.

9. The method for testing and evaluating the vehicle forward start reminder function according to claim 1, characterized in that, By comparing and analyzing the test results under different test scenarios and conditions, we can identify existing problems and deficiencies. Based on the evaluation results, we can propose optimization suggestions for the forward vehicle start reminder function.

10. A device for testing and evaluating the vehicle's forward start reminder function, characterized in that, include: The system comprises a test vehicle, a reference vehicle, a communication module, an industrial control computer, a main inertial navigation system (INS), and a slave INS. The industrial control computer is connected to the vehicle controller of the test vehicle via the communication module, and is also connected to the main INS and the slave INS. The industrial control computer includes at least one processing unit, which is connected to a storage unit via a bus unit. The storage unit stores a computer program, and the processing unit implements the vehicle forward start reminder function test and evaluation method according to any one of claims 1-9 by running the computer program stored in the storage unit.

Images