Autonomous Driving Obstacle Response Using Confidence and Distance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Autonomous driving vehicles face challenges in determining the appropriate response to obstacles due to uncertainty in obstacle movement and sensing reliability, leading to potential safety issues and unnecessary delays or disturbances in driving experience.

Innovation Solution

A method for operating autonomous driving vehicles that calculates a confidence score for obstacles based on sensing data, delaying reactions if the confidence score is below a threshold and the distance to the obstacle is greater than a certain threshold, allowing for safer and more efficient navigation by reducing unnecessary interventions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the ADV reacts immediately to sensed obstacles, then safety is improved, but unnecessary delays and disturbances in driving experience occur when confidence is low

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoiddriving experience delays
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes the response parameter from binary (react/don't react) to a continuous decision based on confidence score thresholds. By introducing a configurable confidence threshold parameter, the system adapts its reaction behavior dynamically, reacting only when confidence exceeds the threshold, thus balancing safety with smooth driving experience.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system makes the reaction decision dynamic by continuously evaluating the confidence score and comparing it against the threshold. The decision to react or delay is not static but adapts in real-time based on the changing confidence level from sensor data, allowing flexible response to varying obstacle situations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Loss of time

If the ADV delays reaction to obstacles, then unnecessary interventions are reduced, but safety may be compromised if the obstacle is real and close

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriving experience delaysVSAvoidsafety
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of timeVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses the distance parameter in combination with confidence score to make the delay decision. By introducing distance as a critical parameter with its own threshold, the system ensures that even if confidence is high, reactions are delayed only when distance is sufficient, preventing unsafe delays in close-proximity situations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts the delay duration based on real-time distance measurements. As the obstacle approaches and distance decreases, the system's ability to delay diminishes, ensuring that safety takes precedence over smooth driving experience when the obstacle is close enough to pose an immediate threat.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If the ADV reacts to all sensed obstacles, then safety is maximized, but false positives and unnecessary reactions increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidfalse positive reactions
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses confidence score as a feedback mechanism from the sensor data processing. By evaluating the confidence level that the sensed object is a real obstacle before triggering a reaction, the system filters out false positives while maintaining sensitivity to genuine threats, thus reducing unnecessary reactions without compromising safety.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Object-generated harmful factors

If the ADV waits for higher confidence, then false positives are reduced, but response time to real obstacles increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefalse positive reactionsVSAvoidresponse time
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-generated harmful factorsVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system balances false positive reduction with response time by introducing two parameters: confidence threshold and distance threshold. The interaction of these parameters creates an optimized decision boundary that reduces false positives while ensuring that response time remains acceptable for genuine obstacles within safe distance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3819182B1Delay decision making for autonomous driving vehicles in response to obstacles based on confidence level and distance
Publication Date: 2024.04.03 BAIDU USA LLC
  • EP3819182B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3819182B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3819182B1 patent drawingFigure 3A~3B

AI summary

In one embodiment, a process is performed during controlling Autonomous Driving Vehicle (ADV). A confidence level associated with a sensed obstacle is determined (404). If the confidence level is below a confidence threshold, and a distance between the ADV and a potential point of contact with the sensed obstacle is below a distance threshold, then performance of a driving decision is delayed (412). If the confidence level is not below the confidence threshold, or the distance between the ADV and the potential point of contact with the sensed obstacle is not below the distance threshold, the driving decision is performed (410) to reduce risk of contact with the sensed obstacle.