Cooperative Maneuver Decision Logic Under Vehicle Constraint Checks
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current approaches to cooperative maneuvers in autonomous vehicles lack a comprehensive evaluation mechanism for cooperation requests, often assuming fully cooperative vehicles or centralized control, which is unrealistic and can lead to safety risks and unfairness due to varying algorithms and priorities among vehicles.
Innovation Solution
A computer-implemented method for an ego vehicle to decide on participation in a cooperative maneuver by receiving proposed actions, checking compatibility with predefined threshold, conditional, and hard constraints, ensuring safety and fairness without relying on specific cooperation protocols or communication technologies.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If vehicles assume full cooperation in cooperative maneuvers, then coordination efficiency is improved, but safety risks increase due to unrealistic assumptions and varying algorithms among vehicles
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the parameter of cooperation willingness from a fixed binary state (cooperate/not cooperate) to a continuous evaluation based on multiple constraints (safety constraints, fairness constraints, protocol constraints). This allows vehicles to dynamically adjust their cooperation decision based on real-time conditions, resolving the contradiction between efficiency and safety.
Solution Approach 2:
Each vehicle independently evaluates cooperation requests against its own constraints and algorithms without relying on centralized control or assumptions about other vehicles' behavior. This self-service approach ensures that each vehicle makes safe decisions based on its own state, resolving the safety issue while maintaining distributed control efficiency.
2Stability of the object's composition
If centralized control is used for cooperative maneuvers, then decision consistency is improved, but system complexity and communication overhead increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent enables each vehicle to independently evaluate cooperation requests using its own constraints and algorithms, eliminating the need for centralized control. This distributed self-service approach maintains decision consistency through standardized constraint evaluation while reducing system complexity and communication overhead.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent creates a universal constraint evaluation framework that can be applied by any vehicle regardless of its specific algorithm or state. This multi-functional evaluation mechanism ensures decision consistency across diverse vehicles without requiring centralized coordination, resolving the contradiction between consistency and complexity.
3Adaptability or versatility
If vehicles use different algorithms for cooperative maneuvers, then adaptability to individual needs is improved, but fairness and system coordination deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the cooperation decision-making process into two independent parts: (1) individual vehicle algorithms and constraints that provide adaptability, and (2) standardized constraint evaluation (safety, fairness, protocol constraints) that ensures system-wide consistency. This segmentation allows vehicles to maintain individual adaptability while ensuring fair coordination through universal evaluation criteria.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent allows each vehicle to have its own local constraints and algorithms tailored to its specific needs and capabilities, while simultaneously requiring adherence to universal constraints (safety, fairness, protocol) that ensure system-wide fairness. This local quality approach resolves the contradiction between individual adaptability and system fairness.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4
AI summary
A computer-implemented method of deciding on participation in a cooperative maneuver involving an ego vehicle and at least a requesting vehicle comprises: receiving information about one or more proposed actions that the ego vehicle is supposed to execute as part of a cooperative maneuver requested by the requesting vehicle; checking whether the proposal is compatible with one or more predefined threshold constraints with regard to one or more quantities relevant for the control of the ego vehicle and whether the proposal is compatible with one or more predefined conditional constraints, the one or more conditional constraints concerning one or more of the following: an adherence to traffic rules; an adherence to a planned route; a number of cooperation requests that the ego vehicle has received within a defined time frame from the requesting vehicle; and outputting information confirming the willingness of the ego vehicle to participate in the cooperative maneuver if the proposal is compatible with each of the constraints.