Autonomous Route Selection With Pareto Control of Manual Driving

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current routing methods for autonomous driving vehicles do not adequately account for road clearance and transition stress, leading to inefficiencies and safety concerns, particularly in adverse weather or road conditions, which hinders the ability to determine safe and optimal routes in real-time.

Innovation Solution

A vehicle routing method that computes and evaluates alternative routes based on travel time, manual driving time, transition count, and a stressing cost function, using a Pareto optimization approach to select routes that minimize manual driving and transitions, while considering road clearance values and weighting factors for stress analysis.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If more information is taken into account and analyzed to ensure safe autonomous driving, then safety is improved, but routing efficiency deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidrouting efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The routing problem is segmented into multiple independent criteria (travel time, manual driving time, transition count) that are evaluated separately. Each criterion is optimized independently through Pareto optimization, allowing comprehensive safety analysis without compromising overall routing efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The routing system dynamically adapts to varying road clearance conditions by computing alternative routes and evaluating them based on current conditions. The system transitions between different routing strategies depending on whether road clearance is available, optimizing both safety and efficiency for each specific situation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If road clearance is withdrawn due to adverse conditions, then safety is improved, but manual driving time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidmanual driving time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary evaluation of alternative routes before road clearance is withdrawn. By pre-computing multiple route options and their characteristics, the system can quickly switch to manual driving on pre-identified alternative routes when safety concerns arise, minimizing the time loss associated with route re-planning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes routing parameters dynamically based on road clearance status. When road clearance is withdrawn, the optimization criteria shift from prioritizing autonomous driving segments to prioritizing routes with minimal manual driving time, allowing flexible adaptation to safety requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Ease of operation

If transitions from autonomous to manual driving are minimized, then passenger comfort is improved, but routing flexibility deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepassenger comfortVSAvoidrouting flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system adds the dimension of transition count as a separate optimization criterion alongside travel time and manual driving time. By evaluating routes in this multi-dimensional space through Pareto optimization, the system can identify routes that minimize transitions while maintaining adequate routing flexibility for various driving conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentEP3611471B1Methods and devices arranged for routing autonomous driving
Publication Date: 2021.03.10 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG
  • EP3611471B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3611471B1 patent drawingFigure 2a~2b
  • EP3611471B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The present invention is directed to a method and to a device for determining routes for autonomous driving. The following steps are executed: computing K alternative routes from a route source to a route destination; evaluating each one of the K alternative routes, wherein the evaluating comprises determining a Pareto front of the K alternative routes, wherein the Pareto front of the K alternative routes comprises a set of Pareto-optimized routes that are Pareto-optimized with regard to route constraints comprising travel time T, manual driving time TM, and transition count M that indicates a count of transitions from the autonomous driving to a manual driving in a route; if the set of Pareto-optimized routes comprises more than P routes, reducing number of Pareto-optimized routes in the set of Pareto-optimized routes to P; and outputing the Pareto-optimized routes of the set of Pareto-optimized routes as the determined routes for autonomous driving.