Autonomous Vehicle Control Entity Transition Management

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Autonomous vehicles face challenges in seamlessly transitioning control between different driving entities, such as human drivers and vehicle electronic control units, due to variations in performance and availability, which can impact safety and efficiency.

Innovation Solution

A method for selectively handing off control between vehicle driving control entities based on evaluating predicted and actual performance levels using specific criteria, involving a vehicle controller that determines the suitability of each entity and initiates transitions accordingly, with a period of heightened scrutiny to ensure stability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If control is transitioned between different vehicle driving control entities, then operational flexibility and adaptability are improved, but system reliability and safety may deteriorate due to performance variations and transition risks

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational flexibilityVSAvoidsystem reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary evaluation of predicted driving performance levels for candidate control entities before transitioning control. This advance assessment ensures that only entities meeting performance thresholds are selected, maintaining reliability while enabling flexible transitions between different control modes (manual, autonomous, remote).

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous monitoring of actual driving performance levels after control transitions and uses this feedback to determine whether to maintain or reverse the transition. This closed-loop feedback mechanism ensures that flexibility does not compromise safety, as poor-performing transitions are automatically corrected.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If continuous performance evaluation is implemented during control transitions, then safety and reliability are improved, but computational complexity and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The performance evaluation process is segmented into distinct phases: predicted performance evaluation before transition, actual performance evaluation after transition, and threshold-based decision-making. This segmentation reduces computational complexity by processing evaluations in discrete steps rather than continuously, while maintaining comprehensive safety monitoring.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes evaluation parameters based on the transition phase - using predicted performance criteria before transition and actual performance criteria after transition. This adaptive parameter selection optimizes computational resources while ensuring appropriate assessment standards are applied at each stage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If performance criteria evaluation is conducted before and after transitions, then transition accuracy and safety are improved, but transition time and operational efficiency may deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransition accuracyVSAvoidtransition time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system conducts predicted driving performance evaluation before transitions to pre-qualify candidate control entities. This preliminary action ensures that only pre-approved entities are considered for transition, reducing the time required during actual transition while maintaining high accuracy through pre-established performance thresholds.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system skips detailed evaluation steps for control entities that fail preliminary threshold checks, directly eliminating them from consideration. This selective skipping reduces overall evaluation time while maintaining transition accuracy, as clearly inadequate entities are rapidly filtered out without consuming excessive processing resources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #21Skipping (Rushing through)

Data Source

PatentUS10268195B2Managing vehicle driving control entity transitions of an autonomous vehicle based on an evaluation of performance criteria
Publication Date: 2019.04.23 QUALCOMM INC
  • US10268195B2 patent drawing
  • US10268195B2 patent drawing
  • US10268195B2 patent drawing

AI summary

In an embodiment, a vehicle controller determines a predicted driving performance level of a vehicle driving control entity (VDCE) while the vehicle is controlled by a different VDCE. Driving control is transitioned to the VDCE, after which an actual driving performance level of the VDCE is monitored. The vehicle controller determines whether to transition driving control away from the VDCE based on the actual driving performance level. In another embodiment, after transition driving control to a VDCE, a period of heightened scrutiny used to evaluate the actual driving performance level of the VDCE specifically after the transition.