skip to main content
10.1145/3450267.3450544acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccpsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Scenario2Vector: scenario description language based embeddings for traffic situations

Published:19 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

A popular metric for measuring progress in autonomous driving has been the "miles per intervention". This is nowhere near a sufficient metric and it does not allow for a fair comparison between the capabilities of two autonomous vehicles (AVs). In this paper we propose Scenario2Vector - a Scenario Description Language (SDL) based embedding for traffic situations that allows us to automatically search for similar traffic situations from large AV data-sets. Our SDL embedding distills a traffic situation experienced by an AV into its canonical components - actors, actions, and the traffic scene. We can then use this embedding to evaluate similarity of different traffic situations in vector space. We have also created a first of its kind, Traffic Scenario Similarity (TSS) dataset which contains human ranking annotations for the similarity between traffic scenarios. Using the TSS data, we compare our SDL embedding -with textual caption based search methods such as Sentence2Vector. We find that Scenario2Vector outperforms Sentence2Vector by 13% ; and is a promising step towards enabling fair comparisons among AVs by inspecting how they perform in similar traffic situations. We hope that Scenario2Vector can have a similar impact to the AV community that Word2Vec/Sent2Vec have had in Natural Language Processing datasets.

References

  1. Pave poll: Americans wary of avs but say education and experience with technology can build trust. https://pavecampaign.org/, May 2020. https://pavecampaign.org/news/pave-poll-americans-wary-of-avs-but-say-education-and-experience-with-technology-can-build-trust/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Daisuke Wakabayashi. Self-driving uber car kills pedestrian in arizona, where robots roam. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tesla car that crashed and killed driver was running on autopilot, firm says. The Guardian, Mar 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/31/tesla-car-crash-autopilot-mountain-view.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Walther Hans Karl Wachenfeld. How stochastic can help to introduce automated driving. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rick Salay and Krzysztof Czarnecki. Using machine learning safely in automotive software: An assessment and adaption of software process requirements in iso 26262. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.01614, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Apple Inc. Our approach to automated driving system safety. Apple ADS Safety. https://www.apple.com/ads/ADS-Safety.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Aurora safety report: The new era of mobility. Aurora. https://aurora.tech/vssa/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. The autox safety factor. autox. https://autox.ai/safety.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A matter of trust: Ford's approach to developing self driving vehicles. ford. https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/pdf/Ford_AV_LLC_FINAL_HR_2.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 2018 self driving safety report. General Motors. https://www.gm.com/our-stories/self-driving-cars.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Reinventing safety: a joint approach to automated driving systems. Daimler and Bosch. https://www.daimler.com/innovation/case/autonomous/reinventing-safety-2.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Navya safety report the autonom era. Navya. https://navya.tech/safety-report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Delivering safety: Nuro's approach. Nuro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Safety is what drives us: Introducing the nvidia self-driving safety report. Nvidia, Oct 2018. https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/10/23/introducing-self-driving-safety-report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Starsky robotics: Voluntary safety self-assessment. Starsky Robotics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 2019 self-driving safety report. https://www.tusimple.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TuSimple-2019-Self-Driving-Safety-Report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Uber advanced technologies group a principled approach to safety. Uber, 2018. https://uber.app.box.com/v/UberATGSafetyReport.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Safety report and first responders waymo safety report. Waymo. https://waymo.com/safety/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Safety is foundational to our mission. Zoox.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Marc René Zofka, Sebastian Klemm, Florian Kuhnt, Thomas Schamm, and J Marius Zöllner. Testing and validating high level components for automated driving: simulation framework for traffic scenarios. In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 144--150. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fisher Yu, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Mike Liao, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Darrell. Bdd100k: A diverse driving video database with scalable annotation tooling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04687, 2(5):6, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Xin Rong. word2vec parameter learning explained. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2738, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Anthony Hu, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. Learning a spatio-temporal embedding for video instance segmentation, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Hu, Yikang Li, and Baoxin Li. Video2vec: Learning semantic spatio-temporal embeddings for video representation. In 2016 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 811--816, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Open Autonomous Safety. Oas scenarios, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Foretellix. Open m-sdl, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311--318, USA, 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Chin-Yew Lin. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74--81, Barcelona, Spain, July 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 65--72, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramakrishna Vedantam, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. CoRR, abs/1411.5726, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Peter Anderson, Basura Fernando, Mark Johnson, and Stephen Gould. SPICE: semantic propositional image caption evaluation. CoRR, abs/1607.08822, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Matt Kusner, Yu Sun, Nicholas Kolkin, and Kilian Weinberger. From word embeddings to document distances. volume 37 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 957--966, Lille, France, 07--09 Jul 2015. PMLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nayyer Aafaq, Syed Zulqarnain Gilani, Wei Liu, and Ajmal Mian. Video description: A survey of methods, datasets and evaluation metrics. CoRR, abs/1806.00186, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jinkyu Kim, Anna Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, John Canny, and Zeynep Akata. Textual explanations for self-driving vehicles. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Matteo Pagliardini, Prakhar Gupta, and Martin Jaggi. Unsupervised learning of sentence embeddings using compositional n-gram features. CoRR, abs/1703.02507, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. William Webber, Alistair Moffat, and Justin Zobel. A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 28(4):1--38, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICCPS '21: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems
    May 2021
    242 pages
    ISBN:9781450383530
    DOI:10.1145/3450267

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 19 May 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate25of91submissions,27%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader