| Literature DB >> 35322105 |
Denggui Wang1, Weiping Fu2,3, Qingyuan Song1, Jincao Zhou1.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore how autonomous vehicles can predict potential risks and efficiently pass through the dangerous interaction areas in the face of occluded scenes or limited visual scope. First, a Dynamic Bayesian Network based model for real-time assessment of potential risks is proposed, which enables autonomous vehicles to observe the surrounding risk factors, and infer and quantify the potential risks at the visually occluded areas. The risk distance coefficient is established to integrate the perception interaction ability of traffic participants into the model. Second, the predicted potential risk is applied to vehicle motion planning. The vehicle movement is improved by adjusting the speed and heading angle control. Finally, a dynamic simulation platform is built to verify the proposed model in two specific scenarios of view occlusion. The model has been compared with the existing methods, the autonomous vehicles can accurately assess the potential danger of the occluded areas in real-time and can safely, comfortably, and effectively pass through the dangerous interaction areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35322105 PMCID: PMC8943059 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08810-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the model-the blue car is the ego vehicle, the truck and red car are occlusions, and the pedestrians, bicycles, black car are occluded TPs. Accidents may occur in interaction areas.
Figure 2The structure of risk assessment model.
Figure 3The prior probability reasoning (when ).
The meaning and states of variables.
| Node | State | Value | Meaning | Node | State | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 1 | Crosswalk | Static | 0 | |||
| No | 0 | Not crosswalk | Low | 3 | |||
| 0 | Medi | 7 | |||||
| 1 | High | 9 | |||||
| 2 | Yes | 1 | Have divider | ||||
| 3 | No | 0 | No divider | ||||
| 4 | 1 | Prior value of potential risk | |||||
| 5 | 0 | ||||||
| One | 1 | The number of one-way lanes | O | Yes | 1 | Observation values | |
| Two | 2 | No | 0 | ||||
| Three | 3 | Z | Yes | 1 | Is there anyone on the road | ||
| More | 4 | No | 0 |
Figure 4Distance coefficient field graph .
Parameters for simulations.
| (Equation) Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.1 s, 1.5 m/s or 2.0 m/s | |
| (2) | 1.5–2.0, 2.0–5.0 m |
| (4) | 0.40, 0.36, 1.45 |
| (7) | |
| (9) | 0.8 m, 4.7, 0.9 |
| (12) | 1.05, 1.5, |
| (12) | 0 m/s2, − 6 m/s2 |
| (17) | 0 m/s2, + 6 m/s2 |
| (15) | 0.9, 0.25 |
| (20) | |
| (21) | 0.2 s |
| (22) | 4.9 |
| (24) | 4 m/s2 |
Figure 5On the left-hand side, shows the actual scene where pedestrians are easy to darting out. On the right-hand side, shows the reasoning results of priori probability using our method.
Figure 6Simulation test scenario structure.
Figure 7The screenshot of the dynamic simulation test is on the left, and the top and middle graph of the right is the position–velocity, risk curve, and the time–velocity, acceleration curve respectively, which are generated by the proposed method. The bottom graph on the right shows the velocity and acceleration curves generated by the AEB method.
Figure 8(a) Scenario of intersection with one static occlusion (building) and no incoming traffic. (b) The same scenario with one other vehicle (truck) coming from the left. (c) Speed and acceleration profiles obtained by Yu et al.[14] in two scenarios (the left one generated by scenario (a), the right one generated by scenario (b)). (d) Speed and acceleration profiles of ours. (e) Speed and risk profiles of ours.
Figure 9(a), (b) Scenario of intersection with one other vehicle (truck) coming from the left road at crossroad and one other vehicle (truck) coming from the right road which occluded by the building. (c) Speed and risk profiles of AV.