ACAV: A Framework for Automatic Causality Analysis in Autonomous Vehicle Accident Recordings

January 13, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Conference on Software Engineering

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Huijia Sun, Christopher M. Poskitt, Yang Sun, Jun Sun, Yuqi Chen arXiv ID 2401.07063 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 14 Venue International Conference on Software Engineering Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
The rapid progress of autonomous vehicles~(AVs) has brought the prospect of a driverless future closer than ever. Recent fatalities, however, have emphasized the importance of safety validation through large-scale testing. Multiple approaches achieve this fully automatically using high-fidelity simulators, i.e., by generating diverse driving scenarios and evaluating autonomous driving systems~(ADSs) against different test oracles. While effective at finding violations, these approaches do not identify the decisions and actions that \emph{caused} them -- information that is critical for improving the safety of ADSs. To address this challenge, we propose ACAV, an automated framework designed to conduct causality analysis for AV accident recordings in two stages. First, we apply feature extraction schemas based on the messages exchanged between ADS modules, and use a weighted voting method to discard frames of the recording unrelated to the accident. Second, we use safety specifications to identify safety-critical frames and deduce causal events by applying CAT -- our causal analysis tool -- to a station-time graph. We evaluate ACAV on the Apollo ADS, finding that it can identify five distinct types of causal events in 93.64% of 110 accident recordings generated by an AV testing engine. We further evaluated ACAV on 1206 accident recordings collected from versions of Apollo injected with specific faults, finding that it can correctly identify causal events in 96.44% of the accidents triggered by prediction errors, and 85.73% of the accidents triggered by planning errors.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted