Vehicle controller and information processor

Abstract

To appropriately determine propriety (normal operation / erroneous operation / excessive operation) of an operation result of a driving support.SOLUTION: A vehicle controller 100 comprises: a peripheral environment recognition part 1 for recognizing a travel environment within a predetermined range around an own vehicle; a driving support execution part 2 for executing driving support of the own vehicle based on a recognition result of the peripheral environment recognition part 1; and an operation result propriety determination part 3 for determining whether or not the driving support is in a normal operation based on a time-series change of the recognition result of the peripheral environment recognition part 1, after the driving support of the own vehicle is executed by the driving support execution part 2.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a vehicle control device for performing driving assistance in a moving body such as a vehicle, and an information processing device that performs processing using information acquired from the vehicle control device. [Background technology]

[0002] Various technologies have been proposed for detecting objects (vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians, structures, etc.) around the vehicle using external recognition sensors such as on-board cameras and radars. Furthermore, collision avoidance control technologies have been developed that use these technologies to avoid collisions with detected objects or reduce damage in the event of a collision. In addition, devices that store information such as driving operation information (e.g., vehicle speed, steering angle, brake ON / OFF, accelerator open / closed state, etc.) and calculation results of various calculation devices (e.g., whether or not a collision avoidance device is activated / what to activate, whether or not an airbag is activated, output of a collision detection sensor, etc.) as history information in order to confirm the circumstances of an accident when it occurs and to investigate the cause after the fact are becoming widespread.

[0003] An example of this collision avoidance control technology is Patent Document 1. Patent Document 1 discloses a vehicle control device that stores the location where a safety device (collision avoidance device) malfunctions, and prevents malfunction by suppressing the operation of the safety device when traveling through that location in the future. In this document, regarding malfunction of the safety device, it is determined that a malfunction has occurred if neither a collision nor a driving operation to avoid a collision is detected within a predetermined time after the safety device is activated. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] JP 2006-195579 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] However, in the above conventional method, the validity is judged based on whether or not a physical phenomenon to be avoided, such as the occurrence of a collision, has actually occurred, which causes a problem of low accuracy of judgment.In addition, among the driving support functions of the safety device, there are some functions that do not cause physical phenomena that serve as a basis for validity judgment (for example, a function for adjusting speed based on the curvature of the road, a function for controlling the steering amount so that the vehicle runs along the lane (LKS), etc.), and there is also a problem that the validity of these functions cannot be judged by the conventional method.

[0006] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above-mentioned circumstances, and has an object to appropriately determine the validity (normal operation / malfunction / excessive operation) of the operation result of a driving assistance system. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] The vehicle control device according to the present invention includes a surrounding environment recognition unit that recognizes the driving environment within a specified range around the host vehicle, a driving assistance execution unit that executes driving assistance for the host vehicle based on the recognition results of the surrounding environment recognition unit, and an operation result validity judgment unit that judges whether the driving assistance was operating normally or not based on time-series changes in the recognition results of the surrounding environment recognition unit after driving assistance for the host vehicle is executed by the driving assistance execution unit. The information processing device of the present invention acquires recognition results of the driving environment around the vehicle, and when driving assistance for the vehicle based on the recognition results is executed, determines whether the driving assistance was operating normally based on time-series changes in the recognition results. Effect of the Invention

[0008] According to one aspect of the present invention, it is possible to appropriately determine the validity of the operation result of the driving assistance (normal operation / malfunction / excessive operation). Problems, configurations, and effects other than those described above will become apparent from the following description of the embodiments. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0009] [Figure 1] 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of a vehicle control device according to a first embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 2] FIG. 5 is a schematic configuration diagram of a vehicle control device according to a second embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 3] 10 is a flowchart showing the overall processing of a vehicle control device according to a second embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 4] 10 is a flowchart showing details of a collision avoidance determination process. [Diagram 5] 10 is a flowchart showing details of a collision avoidance execution process. [Figure 6] 11 is a judgment table showing examples of judgment patterns in a process for determining the validity of a result of a collision avoidance operation. [Figure 7] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a first judgment pattern. [Figure 8] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a sixth judgment pattern. [Figure 9] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a seventh judgment pattern. [Figure 10] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a second judgment pattern. [Figure 11] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a third judgment pattern. [Figure 12] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a fourth judgment pattern. [Figure 13] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a fifth judgment pattern. [Figure 14] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to an eighth judgment pattern. [Figure 15] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to a ninth judgment pattern. [Figure 16] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a notification screen regarding the validity of a result of a collision avoidance operation. [Figure 17] FIG. 11 is a schematic configuration diagram of a vehicle control device according to a third embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 18] 10 is a flowchart showing the overall processing of a vehicle control device according to a third embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0010] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

[0011] (First embodiment) Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle control device according to a first embodiment of the present invention. The vehicle control device (hereinafter referred to as "control device") 100 illustrated in Fig. 1 is a computer that is mounted on and used in a vehicle to control the vehicle, and functions as a surrounding environment recognition unit 1, a driving support execution unit 2, and an operation result validity determination unit 3 by executing a program stored in a storage medium (not shown).

[0012] The control device 100 is connected to a transmission line such as a controller area network (CAN) (not shown) of the vehicle or a dedicated line, and receives external environment recognition information related to the environment around the vehicle and vehicle information related to the running state of the vehicle such as vehicle speed, steering angle, yaw rate, etc. via these transmission lines. In addition, the control device 100 outputs image information and audio information for notifying the occupants of the vehicle, vehicle control information related to the control of the vehicle, etc.

[0013] The surrounding environment recognition unit 1 recognizes the driving environment around the vehicle using external environment recognition information input from the outside. For example, image data of the surroundings of the vehicle captured by an on-board camera, or measurement data of distances to objects around the vehicle measured by a distance measuring device such as a radar or sonar, are input as the external environment recognition information, and based on these data, obstacles to the vehicle are detected and their type, position, moving direction, moving speed, etc. are identified. In addition, the road shape and map information around the vehicle may be recognized as the driving environment around the vehicle.

[0014] The driving support execution unit 2 executes various driving support for the host vehicle based on the recognition result of the driving environment around the host vehicle by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 and the vehicle information input from the outside. For example, image information and audio information according to the driving environment around the host vehicle are output, and the host vehicle displays images and outputs audio based on the information, thereby providing information for driving support to the driver of the host vehicle. In addition, the driving support execution unit 2 outputs vehicle control information for changing the driving state of the host vehicle according to the driving environment around the host vehicle, and performs steering control and brake control according to the information in the host vehicle, thereby performing driving support for the host vehicle. Specific functions realized by the driving support executed by the driving support execution unit 2 include, for example, a function of avoiding obstacles present on the path of the host vehicle, a function of keeping a constant distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, a function of adjusting the speed based on the curvature of the road, a function of controlling the steering amount so that the host vehicle runs along the lane, a function of outputting an approach warning when the host vehicle gets too close to the preceding vehicle, and a function of detecting vehicles approaching from the left and right when entering an intersection and issuing a warning when the host vehicle tries to start. After executing these driving assistance operations, the driving assistance execution unit 2 outputs information on the recognition results of the driving environment around the vehicle obtained by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1, as well as vehicle information input from outside, to the operation result validity judgment unit 3.

[0015] The operation result validity determination unit 3 determines the validity of the driving assistance operation based on information input from the driving assistance execution unit 2 after various driving assistance operations are executed. Here, the operation result validity determination unit 3 determines whether the executed driving assistance operation corresponds to "normal operation," "malfunction," or "excessive operation," thereby determining whether the driving assistance operation was valid or not. Here, normal operation refers to a case where driving assistance is executed normally for the surrounding environment, malfunction refers to a case where unintended driving assistance is executed for the surrounding environment, and excessive operation refers to a case where excessive driving assistance is executed for the surrounding environment.

[0016] Specifically, for example, a case is considered in which the driving assistance execution unit 2 detects other vehicles approaching from the left and right when the vehicle enters an intersection, and issues an alarm to alert the driver when the vehicle is about to start. If the other vehicle that was detected after the alarm was issued is lost after such driving assistance is executed, it can be determined that there is a high possibility that the driving assistance was an erroneous operation. Also, if the other vehicle that issued the alarm does not approach the vehicle as expected, it can be determined that there is a high possibility that the driving assistance was an excessive operation. These determinations can be made by acquiring the recognition result of the driving environment around the vehicle by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 from information obtained after the execution of the driving assistance, and determining the time series change.

[0017] As described above, in the vehicle control device 100 of this embodiment, by using the time series change of the recognition result of the surrounding environment of the vehicle, it is possible to judge the validity of the operation result of various driving support. Furthermore, the information used at the time of judgment and the information of the judgment result may be stored as history information. This history information is useful for accident analysis, etc., and by checking it at the time of vehicle inspection, it is possible to solve the malfunction early.

[0018] According to the first embodiment of the present invention described above, the vehicle control device 100 includes a surrounding environment recognition unit 1 that recognizes the driving environment within a predetermined range around the vehicle, a driving support execution unit 2 that executes driving support for the vehicle based on the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1, and an operation result validity determination unit 3 that determines whether or not the driving support was a normal operation based on a time-series change in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 after the driving support execution unit 2 executes driving support for the vehicle. This makes it possible to appropriately determine the validity of the operation result of the driving support (normal operation / malfunction / excessive operation).

[0019] Second embodiment Next, a second embodiment of the present invention will be described. In this embodiment, as a specific example of driving assistance for a host vehicle, a case will be described in which a collision avoidance operation is performed when a collision between the host vehicle and an obstacle is predicted.

[0020] Fig. 2 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle control device according to a second embodiment of the present invention. The control device 100a illustrated in Fig. 2 is a computer that is mounted on and used in a vehicle to control the vehicle, similar to the control device 100 described in the first embodiment, and functions as a history information storage unit 4 and an information notification unit 5 in addition to the surrounding environment recognition unit 1, driving support execution unit 2, and operation result validity determination unit 3 described above, by executing a program stored in a storage medium (not shown).

[0021] The control device 100a is connected to a braking device 111 of the host vehicle, an external environment recognition device 101, a sound generating device 112, and a display device 113, which are provided in the host vehicle. The control device 100a is also connected to a transmission path such as a CAN (not shown) or a dedicated line of the host vehicle, and vehicle information such as the vehicle speed, steering angle, and yaw rate of the host vehicle is input via these transmission paths.

[0022] The external environment recognition device 101 is a device that acquires information about the environment surrounding the vehicle, and includes, for example, an on-board camera such as a monocular camera or a stereo camera that captures the vehicle's surrounding environment. Image data acquired by the on-board camera is output to the control device 100a as external environment recognition information about the environment surrounding the vehicle described in the first embodiment, either as analog data or after A / D conversion, via a transmission path such as a dedicated line. In addition to the on-board camera, the external environment recognition device 101 can also include a distance measuring device such as a radar that measures the distance to an object using millimeter waves or laser light, or a sonar that measures the distance to an object using ultrasonic waves. The distance measurement information acquired by the distance measuring device is output to the control device 100a as external environment recognition information about the environment surrounding the vehicle, either as analog data or after A / D conversion, via a transmission path such as a dedicated line, similar to the image data. Furthermore, the external environment recognition device 101 may be configured to combine an on-board camera and a distance measuring device to output information such as the distance to a detected object, its direction, speed, and type of object as external environment recognition information regarding the environment around the vehicle to the control device 100a via a transmission path such as a dedicated line.

[0023] The braking device 111 is a device that applies brakes to the vehicle itself, and is configured with an electric brake, a hydraulic brake, or the like that can control the braking force using an electric or hydraulic actuator in response to an external braking command.

[0024] The sound generating device 112 is composed of a speaker or the like, and outputs a warning, voice guidance, and the like to the driver of the vehicle.

[0025] The display device 113 is composed of a display of a navigation device or the like, a meter panel, a warning light, etc. The display device 113 notifies the driver of information such as an operation screen of the control device 100a and a warning screen that visually notifies the driver of a risk of the vehicle colliding with an obstacle.

[0026] In this embodiment, the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 recognizes the driving environment in a predetermined range around the vehicle using external environment recognition information input from the external environment recognition device 101, i.e., image data of the surroundings of the vehicle and distance measurement information, and detects obstacles to the vehicle based on the recognition result, and identifies the type, position, moving direction, moving speed, etc. of the obstacles. Types of obstacles include vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. The type and position of the obstacles are preferably identified by pattern matching, but may be identified using other techniques.

[0027] The driving assistance execution unit 2 includes a collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 and a vehicle control unit 22. The collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 predicts the estimated path of the vehicle and the estimated path of the obstacle based on the recognition result of the surrounding environment of the vehicle by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 and the vehicle information input from the vehicle, and determines whether there is a possibility of a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle. As a result, if it is determined that there is a possibility of a collision, it outputs a request to execute a predetermined collision avoidance operation. In this collision avoidance operation, for example, it determines whether it is a timing to notify or warn the occupants and requests the information notification unit 5 to output these, and further determines whether it is a timing to operate the automatic brake and requests the vehicle control unit 22 to operate the automatic brake. The estimated path of the vehicle can be predicted using vehicle information such as the vehicle speed, steering angle, and yaw rate of the vehicle, and the estimated path of the obstacle can be predicted using the position, moving direction, moving speed, etc. of the obstacle detected by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1. In addition, when determining the possibility of a collision, the type of obstacle may be taken into consideration. For example, if the obstacle is a person, the possibility of the person suddenly stopping or changing direction may be taken into consideration, and the determination conditions may be set to overestimate the prediction error.

[0028] When the vehicle control unit 22 receives an automatic brake operation request from the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21, it calculates a brake control amount and outputs a braking command according to the calculation result to the braking device 111. The braking device 111 performs brake control of the host vehicle according to this braking command. As a result, vehicle control for collision avoidance operation is performed, and driving assistance for the host vehicle is performed by the driving assistance execution unit 2.

[0029] The history information storage unit 4 stores history information when a collision avoidance operation is performed by the driving assistance execution unit 2. The history information stored in the history information storage unit 4 includes, for example, information on the recognition result of the surrounding environment of the vehicle by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 (position, moving direction, moving speed of an obstacle, whether or not the detection result of the obstacle has been confirmed, etc.), prediction information at the time of collision judgment by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21 (estimated path of the vehicle, estimated path of the obstacle, predicted position until the collision between the vehicle and the obstacle, warning timing, braking timing, etc.), actual measurement information during and after the execution of the collision avoidance operation (time when the collision avoidance operation is performed, position of the vehicle until the predicted collision position, speed, turning amount, steering angle, yaw rate, deceleration, etc.), whether or not a collision is detected by the collision detection sensor (not shown) of the vehicle, etc. The history information storage unit 4 stores these pieces of information and information on the judgment result by the operation result validity judgment unit 3 as history information related to the collision avoidance operation of the vehicle at predetermined intervals, each linked to time information.

[0030] In addition, when the driving assistance execution unit 2 executes the collision avoidance operation multiple times, it is desirable that the history information storage unit 4 stores the history information for each of the execution times. In addition, when storing the history information in the history information storage unit 4, a large amount of information may be temporarily stored in a RAM or the like, and information to be finally stored may be carefully selected from the information and stored in a non-volatile storage medium such as a ROM. Alternatively, all information may be stored as is in the non-volatile storage medium. The extent to which information is temporarily or non-volatilely stored can be determined based on the capacity of the RAM or ROM. In this way, if the history information is stored in the history information storage unit 4 and the history information can be read from the history information storage unit 4 after the execution of the collision avoidance operation, it is useful for accident analysis, etc.

[0031] In this embodiment, the operation result validity determination unit 3 determines the validity of the collision avoidance operation based on the history information at the time of the collision avoidance operation stored in the history information storage unit 4. Here, as in the first embodiment, it is determined whether the collision avoidance operation performed as driving assistance for the vehicle corresponds to a normal operation, a malfunction, or an excessive operation. In this embodiment, if the collision avoidance operation is performed normally with respect to an obstacle (if the collision avoidance operation had not been performed, a collision would have occurred), it is determined to correspond to a normal operation, and if the collision avoidance operation is performed even though there is no obstacle on the path of the vehicle, it is determined to correspond to a malfunction. In addition, if the collision avoidance operation is performed in a situation where there is an obstacle near the path of the vehicle but there is no risk of collision, it is determined to correspond to an excessive operation. The judgment result of validity obtained by the operation result validity determination unit 3 is output from the operation result validity determination unit 3 to the history information storage unit 4 and is stored in the history information storage unit 4 as a part of the history information together with the various information described above. Note that the judgment result of validity may be stored in the history information storage unit 4, and the information used to obtain this judgment result may be deleted so as not to be stored in the end. In this way, the ROM capacity of the history information storage unit 4 can be advantageously reduced.

[0032] The information notification unit 5 executes driving assistance for collision avoidance by outputting a predetermined sound or image to the sound generating device 112 or the display device 113 in response to a request for notification / alarm to the occupant output from the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 when a collision avoidance operation is being performed. In addition, when the determination result of the operation result validity determination unit 3 is determined to be not a normal operation but to be highly likely to be a malfunction or excessive operation, the information notification unit 5 determines the content of notification to the occupant and outputs a sound or image corresponding to the content of notification to the sound generating device 112 or the display device 113. In this way, a notification according to the validity of the execution of driving assistance is made to the occupants of the vehicle.

[0033] Next, the processing procedure of the control device 100a according to this embodiment will be described below with reference to the flowcharts shown in Figures 3 to 5. Figures 3 to 5 are flowcharts showing an example of the processing procedure of the control device 100a.

[0034] 3 is a flowchart showing the overall process of a vehicle control device according to the second embodiment of the present invention. The control device 100a executes, for example, a series of processes shown in the flowchart of FIG.

[0035] In process S201, the control device 100a acquires the recognition result of the external environment from the external environment recognition device 101.

[0036] In step S202, vehicle information such as the vehicle speed, steering angle, and yaw rate of the host vehicle is acquired.

[0037] In process S203, a surrounding environment recognition process is performed by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1. Here, based on the external environment recognition result acquired in process S201, the type and position of the obstacle around the vehicle, the moving direction and moving speed of the obstacle, etc. are detected to recognize the state of the obstacle present around the vehicle.

[0038] In process S204, the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 performs a collision avoidance determination process. Here, based on the vehicle information of the host vehicle acquired in process S202 and the state of the obstacle recognized in process S203, the estimated path of the host vehicle and the estimated path of the obstacle are predicted, and it is determined whether or not there is a possibility of a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle. If it is determined that there is a possibility of a collision, it is determined that a collision avoidance operation is to be performed. Details of process S204 will be described later with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 4.

[0039] In process S205, collision avoidance execution process is performed by the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21, the vehicle control unit 22, and the information notification unit 5. Here, when it is determined in process S204 that a collision avoidance operation is to be performed, a notification / alarm to the occupants and automatic braking are performed as a collision avoidance operation for avoiding a collision of the host vehicle with an obstacle. Details of process S205 will be described later with reference to the flowchart in FIG.

[0040] In process S206, when it is determined in process S204 that a collision avoidance operation is to be performed and a collision avoidance operation is performed in process S205 accordingly, history information relating to the collision avoidance operation is stored in the history information storage unit 4. Here, the various pieces of information as described above obtained during the execution of the collision avoidance operation are stored in the history information storage unit 4 in association with time information.

[0041] In process S207, the operation result validity determination unit 3 performs a process of determining the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation performed in process S205 based on the history information of the collision avoidance operation stored in the history information storage unit 4 in process S206. As described above, the operation result validity determination unit 3 determines whether the collision avoidance operation performed as driving assistance for the host vehicle corresponds to a normal operation, a malfunction, or an excessive operation based on various information included in the history information of the collision avoidance operation, i.e., the recognition result of the host vehicle's surrounding environment by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1, the prediction information at the time of judgment by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21, and the actual measurement information during and after the execution of the collision avoidance operation. A specific example of the process of determining the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation in process S207 will be described later.

[0042] In process S208, information notification process is performed by the information notification unit 5. Here, the content of information to be notified to the occupants of the vehicle is determined based on the validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation determined in process S207, and control according to the content is performed on the sound generation device 112 and the display device 113. In response to this control, the sound generation device 112 and the display device 113 issue a predetermined sound or display an image, thereby notifying the occupants of the information.

[0043] After executing step S208, the control device 100a ends the series of steps shown in the flowchart of FIG.

[0044] FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the details of the collision avoidance determination process executed in step S204 of FIG.

[0045] In process S301, the future course (estimated course) of the host vehicle is estimated based on the vehicle information of the host vehicle acquired in process S202 of FIG.

[0046] In process S302, the future path (estimated path) of the obstacle is estimated based on the state of the obstacle recognized in process S203 of FIG.

[0047] In process S303, the time to collision (TTC) until the host vehicle collides with the obstacle is calculated based on the paths of the host vehicle and the obstacle estimated in processes S301 and S302. If no obstacle is detected or there is no risk of the host vehicle colliding with the obstacle, the time to collision is calculated as infinity.

[0048] In process S304, the degree of overlap (estimated overlap amount) between the positions of the host vehicle and the obstacle when the collision time calculated in process S303 becomes zero (the time when the host vehicle collides with the obstacle) is calculated.

[0049] In process S305, it is determined whether or not to execute a collision avoidance operation of the host vehicle based on the collision time calculated in process S303 and the estimated lap amount calculated in process S304. Here, it is determined that a collision avoidance operation of the host vehicle is executed when, for example, the collision time becomes zero and the estimated lap amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.

[0050] After executing step S305, the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 ends the series of processes shown in the flowchart of FIG.

[0051] FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the details of the collision avoidance execution process executed in step S205 of FIG.

[0052] In process S401 in Fig. 5, the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 acquires the determination result of process S305 in Fig. 4, and determines whether or not the determination result has determined that the collision avoidance operation of the host vehicle is being performed. If it has been determined that the collision avoidance operation is being performed, the process proceeds to process S402, and if not, the process proceeds to process S409.

[0053] In process S402, a warning timing setting process is executed by the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21. Here, the time until the start of warning output is set based on the moving speed and type of the obstacle, the paths of the vehicle and the obstacle, etc., so that the occupant can fully recognize the risk of collision before the vehicle collides with the obstacle.

[0054] In process S403, a brake timing setting process is executed by the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21. Here, the time until the automatic brake operation starts is set based on the moving speed and type of the obstacle, the paths of the vehicle and the obstacle, etc., so that the vehicle can be appropriately stopped before colliding with the obstacle.

[0055] In process S404, the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 determines whether it is time to issue a collision warning. Here, for example, the collision time calculated in process S303 in Fig. 4 is compared with the time until the warning output starts set in process S402, and if the collision time is shorter than the warning output start time, it is determined that it is time to issue a collision warning, and the process proceeds to process S405. On the other hand, if the collision time is equal to or longer than the warning output start time, it is determined that it is not time to issue a collision warning, and the series of processes shown in the flowchart in Fig. 5 is terminated.

[0056] In process S405, the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 determines whether it is time to activate the automatic brake. Here, for example, the collision time calculated in process S303 in Fig. 4 is compared with the time until the automatic brake operation starts set in process S403, and if the collision time is shorter than the automatic brake operation start time, it is determined that it is time to activate the automatic brake and the process proceeds to process S406. On the other hand, if the collision time is equal to or longer than the automatic brake operation start time, it is determined that it is not time to activate the automatic brake and the process proceeds to process S408.

[0057] In process S406, the vehicle control unit 22 calculates a brake control amount necessary for the host vehicle to avoid collision with an obstacle, and outputs the calculated brake control amount to the braking device 111 in process S407. Note that the brake control amount output to the braking device 111 is, for example, a target brake pressure, but may be something else. The brake control amount is calculated according to the configuration of the braking device 111 and output.

[0058] In process S408, the information notification unit 5 outputs a warning to the sound generating device 112 and the display device 113 to notify the occupants that the vehicle is highly likely to collide with an obstacle. After process S408 is performed, the series of processes shown in the flowchart of FIG. 5 ends.

[0059] In process S409, it is determined whether or not the brake control amount was output in the previous calculation cycle by the vehicle control unit 22. If the brake control amount was output by executing process S407 in the previous calculation cycle, the process proceeds to process S410, and if not, the series of processes shown in the flowchart in FIG.

[0060] In process S410, since the collision avoidance operation is released, the vehicle control unit 22 performs a subtraction process on the brake control amount previously calculated and output, and in process S411 outputs the calculated brake control amount to the braking device 111. After the process S411 is performed, the series of processes shown in the flowchart of FIG. 5 ends.

[0061] By executing the processes of the flowcharts of Figures 3 to 5 described above, the control device 100a can perform a collision avoidance operation when there is a risk of the vehicle colliding with an obstacle, and can also accurately determine the validity of the operation result (normal operation / erroneous operation / excessive operation). By storing this determination result as history information, it can be used to investigate the cause of an accident when it occurs.

[0062] Next, a specific example of the process of determining the validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation in step S207 of FIG. 3 will be described with reference to FIG. 6 to FIG.

[0063] 6 is a judgment table showing examples of judgment patterns in the process of judging the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation. Here, the history information that is mainly used by the operation result validity judgment unit 3 when performing the process S207 is the following four types of information.

[0064] (1) Collision detection sensor response The validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation is judged based on the presence or absence of a reaction from a collision detection sensor that is installed in the vehicle and detects a collision with an obstacle. In the table of FIG. 6, the case where the collision detection sensor detects a collision with an obstacle is indicated as "reaction present," and the case where no collision is detected is indicated as "no reaction." The presence or absence of a collision detection by the collision detection sensor is stored as part of the history information in the history information storage unit 4 at predetermined time intervals.

[0065] (2) Time series changes in obstacle recognition results The validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation is judged using as an index whether the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 can continuously recognize the obstacle. The table in FIG. 6 shows two patterns: whether the obstacle continues to be recognized, or whether the obstacle is lost (the obstacle cannot be recognized during the collision avoidance operation). If the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 erroneously recognizes an obstacle (the obstacle is mistakenly recognized as an obstacle even though it does not exist), the obstacle may pass by without colliding with it, which is included in the latter case of the obstacle being lost. In other words, the loss of an obstacle is also used as an index indicating that the obstacle is highly likely to have been erroneously recognized. The recognition result of the obstacle by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 is stored in the history information storage unit 4 as part of the history information at predetermined time intervals.

[0066] (3) Discrepancy between the predicted obstacle position and the actual measured position at the time of activation judgment The collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 calculates the amount of deviation between the position of the obstacle predicted at the time of collision determination, i.e., the predicted position of the obstacle when the execution of the collision avoidance operation is determined (the predicted arrival position of the obstacle until the collision between the vehicle and the obstacle) and the actual position of the obstacle detected by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 during and at the end of the collision avoidance operation, and the calculation result is used as an index to determine the validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation. The table in FIG. 6 shows two patterns, whether the calculated amount of deviation is equal to or greater than a predetermined value. Here, the amount of deviation being greater than the predetermined value is used as an index indicating that the error in the predicted position of the obstacle was large, that is, that the recognition error of the obstacle was likely to be large. In addition, in combination with the index (2) above, if the obstacle is lost on the way and the amount of deviation is large, it can be determined that the recognition state was unstable and that the recognition was likely to be erroneously recognized. It is preferable that the predetermined value to be compared with the amount of deviation is variably set based on the speed of the vehicle, the type and speed of the obstacle, etc. For example, when the speed of the vehicle is high, it is necessary to perform collision avoidance operation from a greater distance, and it is necessary to recognize obstacles from a greater distance, which inevitably leads to a larger recognition error. Therefore, in such a case, it is preferable to set the predetermined value for determining the amount of deviation larger than in other cases. The position (actual position) of the obstacle detected by the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 and the position (predicted position) of the obstacle predicted by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21 at the time of collision judgment are each stored as part of the history information in the history information storage unit 4 at predetermined time intervals.

[0067] (4) Deviation between the predicted vehicle position and the actual measured position at the time of activation judgment The collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 calculates the deviation between the position of the host vehicle predicted at the time of collision determination, i.e., the predicted position of the host vehicle when it is determined to perform the collision avoidance operation (the predicted arrival position of the host vehicle until the host vehicle collides with an obstacle) and the actual position of the host vehicle obtained from the vehicle information during and at the end of the collision avoidance operation, and uses the calculation result as an index to determine the validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation. The table in FIG. 6 shows two patterns, whether the calculated deviation amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined value. Here, a deviation amount larger than the predetermined position is used as an index indicating that there is a high possibility that the driver of the host vehicle performed an avoidance operation by steering or the like during the collision avoidance operation. Note that it is preferable to variably set the predetermined value to be compared with the deviation amount based on the speed of the host vehicle, etc. For example, when the speed of the host vehicle is high, it is necessary to perform the collision avoidance operation from a greater distance, and the travel distance during collision avoidance is also longer, so it is preferable to set the predetermined value for determining the deviation amount larger than in other cases. In addition, the position of the vehicle (actual position) calculated from the vehicle information and the position of the vehicle (predicted position) predicted by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21 at the time of collision judgment are each stored in the history information storage unit 4 as part of the history information at predetermined time intervals.

[0068] The operation result validity determination unit 3 uses the above four pieces of information to determine the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation according to the determination table of Fig. 6. Each determination pattern shown in the determination table of Fig. 6 will be explained below with reference to Figs. 7 to 15 in the order of normal operation, malfunction, and excessive operation. In Figs. 7 to 15, the upper figures show how the positional relationship between the vehicle and an obstacle changes over time at times T1 to T4, and the lower figures show how the four types of information shown in the determination table of Fig. 6 changes over time. In the lower figures, the collision response flag shows the response status of the collision detection sensor, and the object confirmation flag shows the time-series change in the obstacle recognition result.

[0069] (Judgment pattern No. 1) FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the first judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 1) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0070] In the scene of FIG. 7, for example, as shown in the upper figures, at time T1, the host vehicle detects a stationary object (stationary obstacle) on the road on which the host vehicle is traveling, and then, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value at time T3, a collision avoidance operation is executed. Then, the host vehicle collides with the obstacle shortly before time T4, and the host vehicle stops at time T4. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower figures. That is, (1) because the collision detection sensor detects a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle, the collision response flag is set shortly before time T4, and (2) because the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 continuously detects obstacles, the object determination flag remains set after being set at time T1. Therefore, in this case, it is highly likely that the host vehicle collided with the obstacle it had detected, and it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was normal. In the scene of Figure 7 where the host vehicle actually collides with an obstacle, it is considered that the information of the collision judgment flag can be given priority, so (3) the amount of deviation between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle and (4) the amount of deviation between the predicted position and the actual position of the host vehicle do not need to be taken into consideration when determining the validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation.

[0071] (Judgment pattern No.6) FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the sixth judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 6) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0072] In the scene of FIG. 8, for example, as shown in the upper figures, at time T1, the host vehicle detects a stationary object (obstacle) on the road on which the host vehicle is traveling, and then at time T3, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value, a collision avoidance operation is performed. Then, at time T4, the host vehicle stops in front of the obstacle without colliding with it. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower figures. That is, (1) the collision detection sensor does not detect a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle, and the collision response flag remains unresponsive, and (2) the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 continuously detects obstacles, so the object confirmation flag remains set after being set at time T1. In addition, after time T3 when the collision avoidance operation is performed, (3) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle, and (4) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the host vehicle are both less than the predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, as a result of performing a collision avoidance operation against an obstacle detected in the path of the vehicle, it is possible to predict that the vehicle will stop in front of the obstacle without colliding with it, and therefore it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was normal.

[0073] (Judgment pattern No. 7) FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the seventh judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 7) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0074] In the scene of FIG. 9, as shown in the upper figures, for example, at time T1, the vehicle detects a stationary object (obstacle) on the road on which the vehicle is traveling, and then at time T3, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value, a collision avoidance operation is performed. Then, the vehicle performs avoidance steering and stops in front of the obstacle at time T4 without colliding. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower figures. That is, compared to the scene shown in FIG. 8, it is different in that (4) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the vehicle is larger than a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, since it can be predicted that the driver performed avoidance steering for the obstacle in front of the vehicle, the collision avoidance operation is normal, and further, it can be determined that the judgment result is more accurate than the situation in FIG. 8. The accuracy obtained here is stored in the history information storage unit 4 as a part of the history information together with the judgment result. Here, it is predicted that the driver attempted to avoid the collision by steering, but if information about the driver's braking operation can be obtained, it can also be predicted that the driver attempted to avoid the collision if he or she operated the brakes. Therefore, even in such a case, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was normal, resulting in a more accurate judgment result.

[0075] (Judgment pattern No. 2) FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the second judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 2) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0076] In the scene of FIG. 10, as shown in the upper figures, for example, at time T2, the vehicle suddenly detects a stationary object on the road on which the vehicle is traveling at a closer distance than in the situations of FIG. 7 to FIG. 9, and then at time T3, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value, a collision avoidance operation is performed. Then, the vehicle reaches the position of the obstacle shortly before time T4, but stops at time T4 without colliding. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower figures. That is, (1) the collision detection sensor does not detect a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle, and the collision response flag remains unresponsive, and (2) the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 detects the obstacle, so the object confirmation flag is set once at time T2, and then the obstacle is lost, so the object confirmation flag is dropped shortly before time T4. Therefore, in this case, the obstacle detected on the path of the vehicle is erroneously recognized, and it can be predicted that the obstacle was lost just before the collision and no collision occurred as a result of performing the collision avoidance operation on the erroneously recognized obstacle, so it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction.

[0077] (Judgment pattern No. 3) FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the third judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 3) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0078] In the scene of FIG. 11, as shown in the upper figures, for example, at time T2, the vehicle detects a stationary object on the road on which the vehicle is traveling at a closer distance than in the situations of FIG. 7 to FIG. 9, and then at time T3, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value, a collision avoidance operation is performed. Then, the vehicle reaches the position of the obstacle a little before time T4 while performing avoidance steering, but stops at time T4 without colliding. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower figures. That is, compared to the scene shown in FIG. 10, it is different in that (4) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the vehicle is larger than a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that there is a high possibility that the obstacle is erroneously recognized as in the situation of FIG. 10, but from the above results, it can be predicted that there is a high possibility that the obstacle in front of the vehicle is actually present and the driver performed avoidance steering. Therefore, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction, but the accuracy of this determination result is lowered compared to the situation of FIG. 10.

[0079] In the situation described in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, a stationary object is suddenly detected at a closer distance than in the situation in Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 on the road on which the vehicle is traveling at time T2. In other words, the obstacle is detected closer than the distance at which an obstacle can normally be detected (for example, 100 m for an obstacle 1 m wide), and it is highly likely that the obstacle is erroneously recognized. Therefore, in the cases such as Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, it is preferable to make the accuracy of the malfunction determination result higher than in other cases.

[0080] (Judgment pattern No. 4) FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the fourth judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 4) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0081] In the scene of FIG. 12, for example, as shown in each of the upper diagrams, at time T1, an obstacle moving in a direction perpendicular to the vehicle path is detected on the side of the road on which the vehicle is traveling, and then at time T2, it is determined that the moving obstacle is moving on the collision course of the vehicle. Then, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value at time T3, a collision avoidance operation is executed, but the moving obstacle is lost shortly before time T4, and the vehicle stops at time T4 without colliding with the obstacle. The history information at this time changes as shown in each of the lower diagrams. That is, (1) the collision detection sensor does not detect a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle, and the collision response flag remains unresponsive, (2) the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 detects the obstacle, so the object confirmation flag is set once at time T1, and then the obstacle is lost, so the object confirmation flag is dropped shortly before time T4. Also, (3) the amount of deviation between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle exceeds a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, it can be predicted that the moving obstacle detected on the collision course of the vehicle was a false recognition, and that the collision avoidance operation was performed for this falsely recognized obstacle, so that the obstacle was lost just before the collision and no collision occurred. Furthermore, it can be predicted that the recognition state of the obstacle was unstable. Therefore, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction.

[0082] (Judgment pattern No. 5) FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the fifth judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 5) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0083] In the scene of FIG. 13, for example, as shown in each of the upper figures, at time T1, an obstacle moving in a direction perpendicular to the vehicle path is detected on the side of the road on which the vehicle is traveling, and then at time T2, it is determined that the moving obstacle is moving on the collision course of the vehicle. Then, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value at time T3, a collision avoidance operation is executed. As a result, the vehicle loses the moving obstacle shortly before time T4 while performing avoidance steering, and at time T4, the vehicle stops without colliding with the obstacle. The history information at this time changes as shown in each of the lower figures. That is, compared to the scene shown in FIG. 12, it is different in that (4) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the vehicle is larger than a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that the recognition state of the obstacle is unstable as in the situation of FIG. 13, and there is a high possibility that the obstacle is erroneously recognized, but from the above results, it can be predicted that the obstacle in front of the vehicle actually exists and that the driver may have performed avoidance steering. Therefore, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction, but the accuracy of this determination result is made lower than in the situation of FIG.

[0084] In the situation described in FIG. 10 to FIG. 13, if the vehicle is equipped with a plurality of sensors for detecting an obstacle and a collision avoidance operation is performed when only one of these sensors detects an obstacle, it can be said that there is a high possibility that the obstacle was erroneously recognized. Therefore, in such a case, it is preferable to increase the accuracy of the judgment result of the malfunction compared to other cases. Similarly, if there is a sensor that is equipped on the vehicle and capable of detecting an obstacle but is not normally used to judge whether or not to perform the collision avoidance operation (for example, an ultrasonic sensor used in a low speed range), and this sensor does not detect an obstacle, it can be said that there is a high possibility that the obstacle was erroneously recognized. Therefore, in such a case, it is preferable to increase the accuracy of the judgment result of the malfunction compared to other cases.

[0085] (Judgment pattern No. 8) FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the eighth judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 8) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0086] In the scene of FIG. 14, for example, as shown in the upper diagrams, at time T1, an obstacle moving in a direction perpendicular to the vehicle path is detected on the side of the road on which the vehicle is traveling, and then at time T2, it is determined that the moving obstacle is moving on the collision course of the vehicle. Then, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value at time T3, a collision avoidance operation is executed, but at time T4, the vehicle stops without colliding with the obstacle. The history information at this time changes as shown in the lower diagrams. That is, (1) the collision detection sensor does not detect a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle, and the collision response flag remains unresponsive, and (2) the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 detects the obstacle, so the object confirmation flag is raised at time T1 and remains in this state until the vehicle stops. Also, (3) the amount of deviation between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle exceeds a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, since the recognition error of the obstacle detected on the collision course of the host vehicle was large (in this case, it is possible that the error in the obstacle's position itself or its moving speed was large), it can be predicted that the obstacle was located at a position away from the host vehicle's path when the host vehicle stopped. Therefore, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was an excessive operation. Furthermore, in this case, (3) the greater the deviation between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle, the greater the prediction of the obstacle recognition error. Therefore, it is preferable to increase the accuracy of the excessive operation determination result as the deviation amount increases.

[0087] (Judgment pattern No. 9) FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of a scene corresponding to the ninth judgment pattern (judgment pattern No. 9) in the judgment table of FIG.

[0088] In the scene of FIG. 15, for example, as shown in each of the upper figures, at time T1, an obstacle moving in a direction perpendicular to the path of the vehicle is detected on the side of the road on which the vehicle is traveling, and then at time T2, it is determined that the moving obstacle is moving on the collision course of the vehicle. Then, when the collision time TTC falls below a predetermined value at time T3, a collision avoidance operation is executed. As a result, the vehicle stops at time T4 without colliding with the obstacle while steering to avoid the collision. The history information at this time changes as shown in each of the lower figures. That is, compared to the scene shown in FIG. 14, it is different in that (4) the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the vehicle is larger than a predetermined value. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that there is a high possibility that the recognition error of the obstacle was large as in the situation of FIG. 14, but from the above result, it can be predicted that the obstacle in front of the vehicle actually exists, and there is a possibility that the driver performed avoidance steering to avoid the obstacle. Therefore, it can be determined that the collision avoidance operation was excessive, but the accuracy of this determination result is lowered compared to the situation of FIG. 14.

[0089] In the situations of Figures 14 and 15, if it is determined in the collision avoidance judgment process described in the flowchart of Figure 4 that the risk of collision with an obstacle has disappeared after a collision avoidance operation is performed at time T3, it is preferable to increase the accuracy of the excessive operation judgment result the earlier this timing (the time after time T3).

[0090] Furthermore, in the process of determining the validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation described above, since determining the validity based on a single determination may result in an incorrect result, it is desirable to determine the result of the determination using information on the frequency of occurrence and accuracy. For example, in the case of frequency of occurrence, if the same determination result is obtained multiple times within a specified time period (for example, twice within two hours), the determination result is determined. In the case of accuracy, the accuracy is added or subtracted, and when it exceeds a specified value, the determination result is determined. In this way, the validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation can be determined more accurately.

[0091] As described above, the operation result validity judgment unit 3 is able to accurately judge the validity (normal operation / malfunction / excessive operation) of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation by utilizing the time series changes in the historical information during the collision avoidance operation stored in the historical information storage unit 4.

[0092] Next, the operation of the information notification unit 5 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0093] Fig. 16 is a diagram showing an example of a notification screen regarding the validity of the result of the collision avoidance operation, which is displayed by the information notification unit 5 in process S208 of Fig. 3. Fig. 16 shows an example of a notification screen displayed on a display unit of a navigation device or the like, which is an example of the sound generating device 112 or the display device 113 that is an output destination of the information notification unit 5.

[0094] When the result of the judgment by the operation result validity judgment unit 3 is not a normal operation but a malfunction or excessive operation, a notification screen as shown in FIG. 16 is displayed. On this notification screen, for example, as shown in FIG. 16, a message such as "The collision avoidance function may have malfunctioned while driving. We recommend that you take the vehicle to a dealer for inspection" is displayed to notify the occupant that there was a problem with the collision avoidance operation performed while the vehicle was driving. Note that the timing for displaying the notification screen in FIG. 16 is preferably, for example, when the vehicle is stopped or when the power supply of the vehicle is shut down. Other timings are also acceptable, but the notification should be displayed at a timing that makes it easy for the occupant to understand the notification content.

[0095] The above-described notification screen notifies the occupant that the collision avoidance function has malfunctioned or been over-operated, and prompts the occupant to bring the vehicle to a dealer, where the vehicle can be inspected and historical information can be collected for a more detailed analysis of the cause. As a result, the specific cause of the malfunction or over-operation of the collision avoidance function can be investigated and the vehicle can be maintained, so that the cause can be eliminated. Examples of specific causes include hardware malfunctions (axis misalignment, aging, dirt adhesion, etc.) and software malfunctions of the environment recognition sensor.

[0096] According to the second embodiment of the present invention described above, the following advantageous effects are achieved.

[0097] (1) In the vehicle control device 100a, the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 detects an obstacle to the host vehicle based on the recognition result of the driving environment. The driving support execution unit 2 has a collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 that predicts a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle and determines whether or not to execute a collision avoidance operation of the host vehicle, and a vehicle control unit 22 that executes driving support by performing vehicle control for the collision avoidance operation based on the judgment result of the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21. After the collision avoidance operation determination unit 21 determines that the collision avoidance operation is to be executed (S205), the operation result validity determination unit 3 determines whether the collision avoidance operation was normal based on the time-series change in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 (S207). As a result of this, when there is a risk of collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle, it is possible to execute the collision avoidance operation as driving support for the host vehicle while determining the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation.

[0098] (2) The vehicle control device 100a further includes a history information storage unit 4 that stores history information related to the collision avoidance operation. This history information includes the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1, prediction information at the time of collision judgment by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21, and actual measurement information during and after the collision avoidance operation. The operation result validity judgment unit 3 judges whether the collision avoidance operation was normal or not based on time-series changes in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 in the history information, the prediction information at the time of collision judgment by the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21, and the actual measurement information during and after the collision avoidance operation. The history information storage unit 4 stores the judgment result of the operation result validity judgment unit 3 as history information. As a result of this, the validity of the operation result of the collision avoidance operation can be accurately judged, and the judgment result can be stored and used for subsequent analysis, etc.

[0099] (3) The recognition results of the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 in the history information include the actual position of the obstacle. Moreover, the prediction information in the history information includes the predicted positions up to the time of each collision when the collision avoidance operation judgment unit 21 predicts a collision between the host vehicle and an obstacle. Furthermore, the actual measurement information in the history information includes the actual positions of the host vehicle during and after the collision avoidance operation is performed. In this way, the information necessary to judge whether the collision avoidance operation was normal or not can be reliably stored as history information.

[0100] (Third embodiment) Next, a third embodiment of the present invention will be described. In this embodiment, an example will be described in which the vehicle control device described in the second embodiment is further configured to share information about a detected obstacle with the outside.

[0101] Fig. 17 is a schematic configuration diagram of a vehicle control device according to a third embodiment of the present invention. The control device 100b illustrated in Fig. 17 is configured by adding a communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 and a communication information output unit 12 to each component of the control device 100a in Fig. 2 described in the second embodiment. The control device 100b is further connected to a communication input device 102 and a communication output device 114 mounted on the vehicle. Only the components different from those of the control device 100a will be described below.

[0102] The communication input device 102 communicates with the outside of the vehicle using a wireless communication method such as Wi-Fi (registered trademark) (IEEE802.11), 4G, or 5G, and receives information necessary for driving assistance of the vehicle. The communication counterpart of the communication input device 102 is, for example, a communication device mounted on another vehicle, a communication device of various infrastructures (traffic lights, ETC gates, dedicated facilities, etc.) installed on the roadside, a mobile phone held by a person, a data center (a facility that accumulates multiple pieces of information and transmits necessary information), etc. In addition, the information received by the communication input device 102 from the communication counterpart is, for example, obstacle information (information of the communication counterpart that is an obstacle, information of an obstacle sensed by the communication counterpart, etc.), and may include, as attribute information, information such as the type of obstacle (normal vehicle, large vehicle, emergency vehicle, two-wheeled vehicle, bicycle, person, other unidentifiable object, etc.), position, speed, moving direction, and reliability (degree to which information can be trusted, for example, a value from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most reliable value).

[0103] The communication output device 114 communicates with the outside of the vehicle using a wireless communication method such as Wi-Fi (IEEE802.11), 4G, or 5G, and outputs information about the vehicle. The communication partner of the communication output device 114 is, for example, a data center (a facility that performs detailed analysis of information and accumulates and statistically processes multiple pieces of information). The information that the communication output device 114 transmits to the communication partner is, for example, history information when driving assistance is performed on the vehicle, and vehicle information such as steering angle and vehicle speed.

[0104] It should be noted that the communication input device 102 and the communication output device 114 may be the same device, in which case the above-mentioned information is transmitted and received by that device.

[0105] The communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 acquires obstacle information around the vehicle input from the communication input device 102 , and outputs the information to the surrounding environment recognition unit 1 .

[0106] The surrounding environment recognition unit 1 has a function of storing obstacle information around the host vehicle input from the communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11, in addition to the functions described in the second embodiment.

[0107] The history information storage unit 4 has a function of outputting history information to the communication information output unit 12 in addition to the functions explained in the second embodiment.

[0108] If necessary, the communication information output unit 12 performs format conversion or the like for outputting the history information to the outside, and outputs the history information to the communication output device 114 .

[0109] Next, the processing procedure of the control device 100b according to this embodiment will be described below using the flowchart shown in FIG. 18. FIG. 18 is a flowchart showing the entire processing of a vehicle control device according to a third embodiment of the present invention. The flowchart in FIG. 18 differs from the flowchart in FIG. 3 described in the second embodiment in that a process S501 is added between the process S202 and the process S203, and a process S502 is added after the process S208. Below, the differences from the second embodiment will be described, and the same parts will not be described.

[0110] In process S501, the communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 acquires obstacle information from the communication input device 102. This allows the communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 to acquire obstacle information around the host vehicle by communication.

[0111] In process S502, the communication information output unit 12 outputs the history information stored in the history information storage unit 4 to the communication output device 114. This makes it possible to transmit the history information to an external data center or the like, thereby enabling data analysis at the data center or the like.

[0112] In this embodiment, in the collision avoidance determination process in step S204, in addition to the state of the obstacle recognized in step S203, the state of the obstacle represented by the obstacle information acquired by the communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 in step S501 is used to determine whether or not there is a possibility of a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle. This makes it possible to perform the collision possibility determination process more accurately.

[0113] In this embodiment, when it is determined in the process of determining the validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation in the process S207 that the collision avoidance operation is likely to have been a malfunction or an excessive operation, the accuracy of the determination result may be adjusted depending on whether or not an obstacle represented by the obstacle information acquired in the process S501 is included. For example, when it is determined in the process S204 that there is a possibility of a collision with the vehicle and the collision avoidance operation is performed in the process S205, if the obstacle represented by the obstacle information acquired by the communication obstacle information acquisition unit 11 is not included within a predetermined range (for example, within 2 m) from the predicted position or actual position of the obstacle during the collision avoidance operation, the accuracy of the possibility that the operation was a malfunction or an excessive operation is increased. This can increase the accuracy of the process of determining the validity of the operation result for the collision avoidance operation.

[0114] According to the third embodiment of the present invention described above, in addition to those described in the second embodiment, the above-mentioned operational effects are further achieved.

[0115] In the above embodiments, an example has been described in which the present invention is applied to a vehicle control device, which is a control device mounted on a vehicle, but the processing of the operation result validity determination unit 3 does not necessarily have to be performed in the vehicle control device. For example, it goes without saying that the history information stored on the vehicle side may be retrieved to an external device via physical wiring or communication, and the processing of the operation result validity determination unit 3 may be performed in that device. In other words, even if the present invention is implemented in a device other than a control device mounted on a vehicle, it is possible to obtain the same effects as those described in the above embodiments.

[0116] In addition, although the above embodiments have been described using several patterns as examples, the present invention is also applicable to other patterns. Furthermore, the present invention can be embodied in various forms without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.

[0117] Furthermore, the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and includes various modified examples and equivalent configurations within the spirit of the claims. For example, the above-described embodiments have been described in detail to clearly explain the present invention, and the present invention is not necessarily limited to having all of the configurations described. Furthermore, a part of the configuration of one embodiment may be replaced with a configuration of another embodiment. Furthermore, a configuration of another embodiment may be added to a configuration of one embodiment. Furthermore, a part of the configuration of each embodiment may be added, deleted, or replaced with another configuration.

[0118] In addition, the above-mentioned configurations, functions, processing units, processing means, etc. may be realized in part or in whole by hardware, for example, by designing them as integrated circuits, or may be realized in software by a processor interpreting and executing a program that realizes each function. Information such as programs, tables, files, etc. that realize each function can be stored in a storage device such as a memory, a hard disk, or an SSD (Solid State Drive), or in a recording medium such as an IC card, an SD card, or a DVD.

[0119] In addition, the control lines and information lines shown are those considered necessary for the explanation, and do not necessarily show all the control lines and information lines necessary for implementation. In reality, it can be considered that almost all components are connected to each other. [Explanation of symbols]

[0120] 1: surrounding environment recognition unit, 2: driving assistance execution unit, 3: operation result validity determination unit, 4: history information storage unit, 5: information notification unit, 11: communication obstacle information acquisition unit, 12: communication information output unit, 21: collision avoidance operation determination unit, 22: vehicle control unit, 100, 100a, 100b: vehicle control device (control device), 101: external environment recognition device, 102: communication input device, 111: braking device, 112: sound generation device, 113: display device, 114: communication output device

Claims

1. A surrounding environment recognition unit that recognizes a driving environment within a predetermined range around the host vehicle; a driving assistance execution unit that executes driving assistance for the host vehicle based on a recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit; and an operation result validity determination unit that determines whether or not the driving assistance was normally performed based on a time-series change in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit after the driving assistance execution unit executes the driving assistance for the host vehicle. Vehicle control device.

2. the surrounding environment recognition unit detects an obstacle to the host vehicle based on a result of the recognition of the driving environment; The driving assistance execution unit includes a collision avoidance operation determination unit that predicts a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle and determines whether or not to execute a collision avoidance operation of the host vehicle, and a vehicle control unit that performs vehicle control for the collision avoidance operation based on a determination result of the collision avoidance operation determination unit to execute the driving assistance, The operation result validity determination unit determines whether the collision avoidance operation was normal based on a time series change in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit after the collision avoidance operation determination unit determines that the collision avoidance operation is to be performed. The vehicle control device according to claim 1.

3. A history information storage unit that stores history information related to the collision avoidance operation, The history information includes a recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit, prediction information at the time of collision determination by the collision avoidance operation determination unit, and actual measurement information during and after the execution of the collision avoidance operation, the operation result validity determination unit determines whether the collision avoidance operation was a normal operation based on time-series changes in the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit in the history information, prediction information at the time of collision determination by the collision avoidance operation determination unit, and actual measurement information during and after the execution of the collision avoidance operation; The history information storage unit stores a result of the determination by the operation result validity determination unit as the history information. The vehicle control device according to claim 2.

4. the recognition result of the surrounding environment recognition unit includes an actual position of the obstacle, the prediction information includes a predicted position until each collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle when the collision avoidance operation determination unit predicts a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle, The actual measurement information includes an actual position of the host vehicle during and after the collision avoidance operation is performed. The vehicle control device according to claim 3.

5. The operation result validity determination unit determines that there is a high possibility that the collision avoidance operation was a normal operation when a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is detected, or when a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is not detected and the surrounding environment recognition unit continues to detect the obstacle. The vehicle control device according to claim 4.

6. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a normal operation; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been a normal operation, and when the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, or when the driver brakes the vehicle while the collision avoidance operation is being performed, the accuracy is increased. The vehicle control device according to claim 5.

7. The operation result validity determination unit determines that there is a high possibility that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction if the surrounding environment recognition unit becomes unable to detect the obstacle before the host vehicle reaches the predicted position and a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is not detected. The vehicle control device according to claim 4.

8. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been a malfunction and the surrounding environment recognition unit detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the predetermined range, the accuracy is increased. The vehicle control device according to claim 7.

9. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been a malfunction, and only one of a plurality of sensors for detecting the obstacle mounted on the host vehicle detects the obstacle, the accuracy is increased. The vehicle control device according to claim 7.

10. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been a malfunction, and when a sensor capable of detecting the obstacle mounted on the host vehicle does not detect the obstacle, the accuracy is increased. The vehicle control device according to claim 7.

11. A communication obstacle information acquisition unit that acquires obstacle information around the vehicle by communication, The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction; When it is determined that there is a high possibility that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction, and when the obstacle represented by the obstacle information acquired by the communication obstacle information acquisition unit is not included within a predetermined range from the position of the obstacle determined to collide with the host vehicle, the accuracy is increased. The vehicle control device according to claim 7.

12. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was an excessive operation; if the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the obstacle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value and a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle is not detected, it is determined that there is a high possibility that the collision avoidance operation has been an excessive operation, The greater the deviation, the higher the accuracy. The vehicle control device according to claim 4.

13. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was an excessive operation; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been an excessive operation and when the collision avoidance operation determination unit determines that the risk of collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle has disappeared during the execution of the collision avoidance operation, the earlier the timing, the higher the accuracy. The vehicle control device according to claim 4.

14. The operation result validity determination unit storing a probability that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction or an excessive operation; When it is determined that the collision avoidance operation is highly likely to have been an erroneous operation or an excessive operation, and when the deviation amount between the predicted position and the actual position of the host vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the accuracy is reduced. The vehicle control device according to any one of claims 7 to 13.

15. Whether or not the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction or an excessive operation is determined based on the number of times or the accuracy that the operation result validity determination unit has determined that there is a high possibility that the collision avoidance operation was a malfunction or an excessive operation. The vehicle control device according to claim 14.

16. An information notification unit that notifies an occupant of the vehicle of information, The information notification unit is When the operation result validity determination unit determines that the collision avoidance operation is not a normal operation, the information on the result of the determination and the content of the recommendation to bring the vehicle to a dealer are notified to the occupant of the vehicle. The vehicle control device according to claim 3.

17. The information notification unit notifies an occupant of the host vehicle of the information at least when the host vehicle is stopped after the collision avoidance operation is completed or when the host vehicle is shut down. The vehicle control device according to claim 16.

18. A communication information output unit that outputs information to the outside through communication is further provided. The communication information output unit outputs at least the history information stored in the history information storage unit to an outside. The vehicle control device according to claim 3.

19. The history information storage unit stores at least one of information on whether a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle has been detected, information on whether the surrounding environment recognition unit has detected the obstacle, position information of the host vehicle and the obstacle, position information or course information of the host vehicle and the obstacle when the collision avoidance operation determination unit predicts a collision between the host vehicle and the obstacle, and information on a running state of the host vehicle, and time information linked to the information. The vehicle control device according to claim 3.

20. Obtain the recognition results of the driving environment around the vehicle, When driving assistance for the vehicle is performed based on the recognition result, it is determined whether the driving assistance has been performed normally based on a time series change in the recognition result. Information processing device.

Images