DE102022106571A1 - Controlling a vehicle - Google Patents

Abstract

A method (200) for validating a route (115,120) traveled by a vehicle (105), comprising steps of determining an estimated position for the vehicle (105); the position being in the area of the route (115,120); detecting a first set of landmarks (145) in the area of the vehicle (105); determining a second set of landmarks (145) detectable in the area of the estimated position according to a road map; and determining whether the vehicle (105) is on the route (115,120) based on an amount by which the first quantity differs from the second quantity.

Description

The present invention relates to the control of a vehicle. In particular, the invention relates to the validation of whether the vehicle is on a predetermined route.

A vehicle can be automatically controlled along a predetermined route. To do this, its position can be determined precisely and compared with map data in the area of the position. In addition, an area surrounding the vehicle can be scanned in order to determine the position on the basis of landmarks and to detect a dynamic obstacle such as another road user.

For example, the vehicle can be controlled with a high level of safety along a motorway or a similarly developed route. However, the determination of the position is subject to certain errors and the map data is usually not sufficiently accurate for all routes in the area of the vehicle. It may therefore happen that the vehicle is not on the highway at all, but on another nearby road. Certain assumptions made for the control, for example the absence of oncoming traffic, a traffic light or very slow road users, may not apply there, meaning there is a risk of an accident.

One object underlying the invention is to provide a method for validating a route on which the vehicle appears to be traveling. The invention solves the problem by means of the subject matter of the independent claims. Subclaims reflect preferred embodiments.

According to a first aspect of the present invention, a method for validating a route traveled by a vehicle includes steps of determining an estimated position for the vehicle, the position being in the area of the route; detecting a first set of landmarks in the area of the vehicle; determining a second set of landmarks detectable according to a road map in the area of the estimated position; and determining whether the vehicle is on the route based on an amount by which the first quantity differs from the second quantity.

This is a simple and reliable way to ensure that the vehicle is on the route. If it is determined that the vehicle is not on the predetermined route, a warning signal can be issued on board the vehicle. If the vehicle is controlled automatically, the automatic control can be ended. However, if the vehicle is on another route in the area of the estimated position, this can be determined quickly and with a high degree of certainty. The procedure can be carried out again with regard to the other route in order to validate its use.

The quantities are preferably compared with respect to one or more predetermined threshold values. It can thus be determined that the vehicle is not on the route if a first number of landmarks, which are included in both the first and second sets, are below a first predetermined threshold value.

It can also be determined that the vehicle is not on the route if a second number of landmarks, which are only included in the first set but not in the second set, exceeds a second predetermined threshold value.

Furthermore, it can be determined that the vehicle is not on the route if a third number of landmarks that are not included in the first set but are included in the second set exceed a third predetermined threshold value.

The first and second quantities may be determined with respect to travel of the vehicle over a predetermined distance. Temporary interference that impairs the ability to detect a landmark by the vehicle, for example if the landmark is obscured by another road user, can be less significant. If another route is possible for the vehicle, the routes of the routes can be different so that other landmarks can be recorded along the predetermined route. The predetermined distance can be, for example, approximately 50 m, approximately 300 m or approximately 1 km.

According to a further aspect of the present invention, a device on board a vehicle for validating a route traveled by the vehicle comprises a positioning device for determining an estimated position for the vehicle, the position being in the area of the route; a scanning device for detecting landmarks in the area of the vehicle; a map memory for storing a road map with information about landmarks in the area of the estimated position; and a processing facility. The processing facility is set up to process a first amount of land to determine marks that can be detected in the area of the vehicle; determine a second set of landmarks detectable according to the road map in the area of the estimated position; and determining whether or not the vehicle is on the route based on an amount by which the first quantity differs from the second quantity.

The processing device can be set up to carry out a first method described herein in whole or in part. For this purpose, the processing device can comprise a programmable microcomputer or microcontroller and the method can be in the form of a computer program product with program code means. The computer program product can also be stored on a computer-readable data carrier. Features or advantages of the first method can be transferred to the device or vice versa.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a vehicle includes an apparatus described herein. The vehicle preferably comprises a motor vehicle, in particular a motorcycle, a passenger car, a truck or a bus.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a second method for determining a threshold for validation described herein includes steps of providing a model having a first roadway surrounding which first landmarks are located; determining a second route based on second landmarks randomly distributed in the area of the first route; wherein the second landmarks are determined with respect to a worst-case value for a parameter that determines the random distribution of the second landmarks; simulating a vehicle traveling over the modeled second route; and determining the threshold such that a probability of incorrectly determining that the vehicle is on the first route is less than a predetermined amount.

It is particularly preferred that the second route is generated in such a way that it is relatively close to the first route. For example, the routes can run essentially parallel to one another at a predetermined distance. However, the exact route of the second route may be random. The first route can be taken from reality or borrowed from it and can, for example, follow the course of a real highway. The first landmarks that are assigned to the first route can be taken from a road map. The second route can be determined in the manner described on the basis of chance and a worst-case estimate.

On the basis of a large number of randomly generated second routes and corresponding determinations as to which route the vehicle is traveling on, the probability of a false positive validation of the first route can be determined.

It is further preferred that the second method is carried out repeatedly with respect to a plurality of first routes. The first routes can be determined randomly or pseudo-randomly. In this way, it can be simulated that the second route is not known when the vehicle is actually traveling or is not recorded in the map data.

The first route can be referred to as the target road if it was initially determined that the vehicle is on it or if a predetermined driving function is to be carried out only on the first route. The second route can be referred to as the actual road if the vehicle is actually on this road. The probability of positive validation of the target road when driving on the actual road can be determined using the second method and changed by changing the threshold value.

The threshold value preferably relates to a threshold value described herein with respect to the first method. It is further preferred that several threshold values are determined simultaneously using the second method.

The distribution of landmarks in the area surrounding the vehicle or the route can be subject to random and/or unknown parameters. Random parameters cannot be estimated, but unknown ones can. For example, a density of landmarks per area may follow a normal distribution, where a standard deviation may systematically determine the actual distribution. A parameter for the standard deviation can therefore be assumed to be pessimistic. The threshold value can be determined in such a way that the route being traveled is sufficiently reliably validated.

Worst-case values are preferably determined for several parameters, each of which systematically determines the distribution. In this way it can be taken into account that the parameters can be mutually dependent. In the example above, an interaction between one Expected value and the standard deviation of the density of landmarks per area.

With respect to the specific threshold value, a probability can be determined with which it is incorrectly determined that the vehicle is on the first route. In this way, the security of the first method can be determined not to provide an incorrect positive validation of a route.

To determine safety, the validation can be carried out at various points along the second route or in various simulations of landmarks in the area of a route. The simulations can, for example, be carried out in the manner of a Monte Carlo method. The simulations can be viewed as a sample of a population of possible routes and surrounding landmarks and the specific probability can be related to the population. If the determined probability is lower than predetermined, the threshold value can be changed.

Furthermore, with regard to the specific threshold value, it can be determined after which route it is correctly determined that the vehicle is on the first route. In this way, the availability of the first method or a statement provided thereby can be determined. If the availability is lower than predetermined, the threshold value can be changed.

Overall, the specific threshold value or values are preferably changed iteratively so that maximum availability is achieved with a predetermined level of security.

• 1 ein System mit einem Fahrzeug auf einer Fahrstraße;
• 2 ein Ablaufdiagramm eines ersten Verfahrens; und
• 3 ein Ablaufdiagramm eines zweiten Verfahrens

illustriert.The invention will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

• 1 a system with a vehicle on a road;
• 2 a flowchart of a first method; and
• 3 a flowchart of a second method

illustrated.

1 shows a system 100 with a vehicle 105, on whose board there is a device 110.

For example, it is assumed that the vehicle 105 is on a first route 115. The first route 115 may include a highway and the vehicle 105 may be automatically controlled on the first route 115. With regard to the driving function, the first route 115 can also be called the target road.

In relative proximity to the first route 115 there is a second route 120, which can, for example, include a subordinate or secondary route. Automatic control of the vehicle 105 on the second route 120 cannot be provided, for example because there is no sufficiently precise topographical information about the second route 120 or because events can be expected on the second route 120 that are caused by automatic control of the vehicle 105 cannot be managed reliably. If, contrary to the above-mentioned assumption, the vehicle 105 is on the second route 120, this can be referred to as the actual road.

The device 110 is set up to validate a route 115, 120 traveled by the vehicle 105, that is, to ensure whether the vehicle 105 is traveling on the first route 115. A positive validation means that it was possible to determine with a predetermined certainty that the vehicle 105 is traveling on the predetermined route 115. A negative validation, on the other hand, means that it cannot be determined with sufficient certainty that the vehicle 105 is traveling on the first route 115. In this case, the vehicle 105 could be on the second route 115 or next to all routes 115, 120. Until a result is available, validation is neither positive nor negative, but indeterminate.

The device 110 preferably comprises a processing device 125, which is connected to a positioning device 130, a scanning device 135 and/or a card memory 140. In the area of the vehicle 105 there are various exemplary landmarks 145. In 1 a first exemplary landmark 145.1, a second exemplary landmark 145.2 and a third exemplary landmark 145.3 are shown. Landmarks 145 can include, for example, traffic signs, information signs, buildings, terrain features or similar objects that are stationary and can preferably be detected by the vehicle 105 without contact.

The positioning device 130 is set up to determine a position estimate for the vehicle 105. In one embodiment, the positioning device 130 comprises a receiver for, for example, a satellite-based radio navigation system GNSS. In another In this embodiment, the positioning device 130 can also be based, for example, on the recognition of landmarks 145, using an odometer and/or an inertial sensor.

The scanning device 135 preferably comprises a camera, a radar sensor and/or a LIDAR sensor. By means of the scanning device 135, a landmark 145 can be scanned without contact and its position relative to the vehicle 105 can preferably be determined.

Map data is stored in the map memory 140, which can include information about the course of the routes 115, 120 and about landmarks 145. This information can be used in particular to determine a geographical position of a landmark 145 based on a scanning of a landmark 145 by means of the scanning device 135.

It is proposed that the device 110 is set up to use the scanning device 135 to detect a first set of landmarks 145 in the area of the vehicle 105, as well as a second set of landmarks 145, which are in the area of the vehicle according to the information stored in the map memory 140 105 can be scanned. Furthermore, the device 110 is set up to determine that the vehicle 105 is only on a predetermined route 115, 120 if the specific quantities sufficiently overlap in a predetermined manner. Otherwise, it can be determined that the vehicle 105 is on a different route 115, 120 or at least not on the predetermined route 115, 120.

2 shows a flowchart of a first method 200 for validating a route 115, 120 on board the vehicle 105. In a first step 205, a geographical position of the vehicle 105 can be determined. The specific position may be subject to a predetermined inaccuracy and/or uncertainty. The specific position may be distorted, for example, due to a measurement error or a map error.

In a step 210, a route 115, 120 traveled by the vehicle 105 can be determined based on the determined position and map data about routes 115, 120 in the area of the position. However, the specific route 115, 120 may be incorrect under certain circumstances.

In a step 215, an environment of the vehicle 105 can be scanned using the scanning device 135. Subsequently, in a step 220, a first set of landmarks 145 can be determined that could be detected using the scanning device 135. At the same time, in a step 225, a second set of landmarks 145 can be determined, which should be recorded at the specific position of the vehicle 105 with regard to map data in the map memory 140.

In a step 230 the two quantities can be compared with one another. In particular, it can be determined how many landmarks 145 are exclusively in the first set, exclusively in the second set or in both the first and second sets. One or more of these three key figures can be compared with an assigned threshold value. Depending on the results of the comparisons, it can be determined whether the specific route 115, 120 should be validated or rejected.

In particular, the specific route 115, 120 can be negatively validated if a first number of landmarks 145, which are included in both the first and second sets, are below a first predetermined threshold value. The route 115, 120 can also be negatively validated if a second number of landmarks 145, which are only included in the first set but not in the second set, exceeds a second predetermined threshold value. The specific route 115, 120 can also be negatively validated if a third number of landmarks 145, which are not included in the first set but are included in the second set, exceeds a third predetermined threshold value. A positive validation can occur if none of these criteria are met. In addition, for positive validation it can be required that a predetermined number of landmarks 145 are in the first set, i.e. the position of the vehicle 105 can be determined on the basis of a sufficient number of landmarks 145.

In a step 235, a result of the validation can be provided. If the specific route 115, 120 can be positively validated, automatic control of the vehicle 105 can take place or continue with respect to the specific position. Otherwise, if the particular route 115, 120 has been negatively validated, automatic control of the vehicle 105 may be disabled or terminated.

3 shows a flowchart of a second method 300 for determining threshold values for the first method 200. Some of the steps of the second method 300 may have to be carried out frequently, for which a powerful processing device is advantageous, which is usually not available on board a vehicle 105. The second method 300 is therefore becoming more common carried out using a processing device outside a vehicle 105.

In a first step 305, a model can be provided in which a journey of a vehicle 105 on a route 115, 120 can be simulated with respect to a large number of landmarks 145. The model is populated with a first route 115, which can be determined from map data of an actually existing route. The first route 115 can be defined by first landmarks 145 that can be detected from the first route 115.

In another embodiment, the first route 115 may also be randomly generated, as described below with respect to the second route 120. However, a worst-case estimate of a parameter cannot generally be made. A corresponding parameter can then be set manually or specified.

In a step 310, a plurality of second landmarks 145 can be created in the model. The generated landmarks 145 may follow a predetermined distribution. For example, a number of landmarks 145 per area can follow a normal distribution.

Where a landmark 145 lies in the environment of the vehicle 105 is preferably the result of a random or pseudo-random influence and a systematic influence. The systematic influence can be determined or characterized by a parameter that can be determined in a step 315. For example, the parameter can specify a maximum or minimum number of landmarks 145 per area in the model.

Although the parameter is not known in reality, a range can be determined in which the parameter lies with a predetermined probability. A value that is as pessimistic as possible in the range is then preferably selected, i.e. a value at which a correct positive or negative validation of the route 115, 120 is as difficult as possible or at which the probability of incorrect validation, in particular of incorrect positive validation, is as high as possible is high. This parameter can be used as the basis for the population of the model with objects 115, 120, 145.

In a step 320, the second route 120 may be provided in the model. The second route 120 can also be characterized by a parameter that can, for example, relate to a minimum curve radius or a number of lanes.

In a step 325, a journey of the vehicle 105 over the route 115, 120 can be simulated in the model. In different embodiments, the journey can take place on the first route 115, on the second route 120 or on a randomly selected one of the routes 115, 120. During the simulated journey, the route 115, 120 being traveled can be validated in a step 330. For this purpose, steps of a first method 200 described herein can be carried out.

In a step 335, an error probability of a positive validation can be determined. This corresponds to a probability with which a route 115, 120 is positively validated, even though the vehicle 105 is actually not on the assumed route 115, 120, but outside a route or on the other route 115, 120. The probability of error depends on threshold values that are set for assessing the degree of coverage of the first with the second set in step 230 of the first method 200.

The probability of errors can be determined in the model based on a variety of validations while driving on the route 115, 120. A large number of trips can be simulated with respect to a large number of generated second routes 120. These trips are preferably determined with respect to a large number of first routes 115, which can be randomly selected or generated. For a threshold value, a very large number of trips of the vehicle 105 can be simulated and the route 115, 120 traveled can be validated in each case.

In a step 340, availability of the first method 200 can be determined. For this purpose, it can be determined which route the vehicle 105 must travel before validation, in particular positive validation, is possible. The shorter this route is on average, the higher the availability of the first method 200. The availability also depends on the selected threshold values for assessing the degree of coverage of the first with the second quantity.

In a step 345, the threshold values used can be adjusted. An attempt is preferably made to keep the probability of errors below a predetermined limit while maximizing availability. The method can then return to step 325 and run again with changed threshold values. Are the threshold values set optimally so that the predetermined error probability is maintained and availability is not significantly reduced? is improved, the second method 300 can provide and schedule the specific threshold values in a step 350.

If no threshold values can be found at which the predetermined error probability must be adhered to, a corresponding message can be issued before the method 200 is ended.

Reference symbols

100

system

105

vehicle

110

contraption

115

first route

120

second route

125

Processing facility

130

Positioning device

135

scanning device

140

Card storage

145

Landmark

145.1

first landmark

145.2

second landmark

145.3

third landmark

200

first procedure

205

Determine position

210

Determine route

215

Scan the surroundings

220

Determine first set of landmarks from scanning

225

Determine second set of landmarks from map data

230

Compare quantities with respect to threshold values

235

Validate route

300

second procedure

305

Provide model

310

Create landmarks

315

Determine parameters

320

Create route

325

Simulate driving a vehicle along the road

330

Validate route while driving

335

Determine probability of error

340

Determine availability

345

Adjust thresholds

350

Provide thresholds

Claims (11)

Method (200) for validating a route (115,120) traveled by a vehicle (105), the method (200) comprising the following steps: - Determining (205) an estimated position for the vehicle (105); - the position being in the area of the route (115,120); - Detecting (215, 220) a first set of landmarks (145) in the area of the vehicle (105); - Determining (225) a second set of landmarks (145) which can be detected in the area of the estimated position according to a road map; and - Determine (230, 235) whether the vehicle (105) is on the route (115,120) based on a degree by which the first quantity differs from the second quantity. Procedure (200) according to Claim 1 , wherein it is determined that the vehicle (105) is not on the route (115,120) if a first number of landmarks (145), which are included in both the first and second sets, are below a first predetermined threshold value . Procedure (200) according to Claim 2 , wherein it is determined that the vehicle (105) is not on the route (115,120) if a second number of landmarks (145), which are only included in the first set but not in the second set, exceeds a second predetermined threshold value . Method (200) according to one of the preceding claims, wherein it is determined that the vehicle (105) is not on the route (115,120) if a third number of landmarks (145) are not from the first set but from the second set are included, exceeds a third predetermined threshold value. Method (200) according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the quantities are determined with respect to a journey of the vehicle (105) over a predetermined route. Device (110) on board a vehicle (105), for validating a route (115,120) traveled by the vehicle (105), the device comprising the following: - a positioning device (130) for determining an estimated position for the vehicle (105) ; - the position being in the area of the route (115,120); - a scanning device (135) for detecting landmarks (145) in the area of the vehicle (105); - a map memory (140) for storing a road map with information about landmarks (145) in the area of the estimated position; and - a processing device (125) which is set up to determine a first set of landmarks (145) that can be detected in the area of the vehicle (105); determine a second set of landmarks (145) detectable in the area of the estimated position according to the road map; and determining whether the vehicle (105) is on the route (115,120) based on an amount by which the first quantity differs from the second quantity. Vehicle (105), comprising a device (110). Claim 6 . Method (300) for determining a threshold value for a validation (200) according to one of Claims 1 until 5 , wherein the method (300) comprises the following steps: - providing (305) a model with a first route (115), in the vicinity of which there are first landmarks; - Determining a second route (120) based on second landmarks which are randomly distributed in the area of the first route (115); - wherein the second landmarks are determined with respect to a worst-case value for a parameter that determines the random distribution of the second landmarks; - Simulating a journey of a vehicle (105) over the modeled second route (120); and - determining (345) the threshold value such that a probability of incorrectly determining that the vehicle (105) is on the first route (115) is below a predetermined amount. Procedure (300). Claim 8 , whereby worst-case values are determined for several parameters (315), each of which systematically determines the distribution. Procedure (300). Claim 8 or 9 , whereby a probability is determined (335) with respect to the specific threshold value, with which it is incorrectly determined that the vehicle (105) is on the route (115,120). Method (300) according to one of the Claims 8 until 10 , whereby it is determined (340) based on the specific threshold value after which route it is correctly determined that the vehicle (105) is on the route (115,120).

Images