智能汽车预期功能安全保障关键技术

doi:10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2022.09.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

由于性能局限、规范不足或可合理预见误用导致的预期功能安全问题层出不穷，严重阻碍了智能汽车的快速发展。本综述聚焦智能汽车预期功能安全保障关键技术，分别从系统开发、功能改进和运行3个阶段进行了系统的总结，最后从基础理论、风险防护和更新机制3方面进行了展望。本文可为智能汽车预期功能安全研究提供重要参考依据。

关键词: 智能汽车, 预期功能安全, 系统开发, 功能改进, 运行监控, 风险防护

Abstract:

The limitations on performance， insufficient specifications or reasonably foreseeable misuse lead to the issues related to the safety of the intended functionality （SOTIF） emerging one after another， seriously hindering the rapid development of intelligent vehicles. This paper focuses on the key technologies to ensure the SOTIF， and systematically summarizes the related state of art of research from system development， functional improvement， and operation three phases. Finally， the research prospect is foreseen from the perspectives of basic theory， risk prevention and update mechanism. The review can provide an important reference for the research on the safety of the intended functionality for intelligent vehicles.

Key words: intelligent vehicles, safety of the intended functionality, system development, functional improvement, operation monitoring, risk prevention

邵文博,李骏,张玉新,王红. 智能汽车预期功能安全保障关键技术[J]. 汽车工程, 2022, 44(9): 1289-1304.

Wenbo Shao,Jun Li,Yuxin Zhang,Hong Wang. Key Technologies to Ensure the Safety of the Intended Functionality for Intelligent Vehicles[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2022, 44(9): 1289-1304.

图/表 13

图 1

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

图 6

图 7

图 8

图 9

图 10

图 11

图 12

图 13

参考文献 109

1	BOARD T. Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian［J］. Tempe， Arizona， 2018： 78.
2	ISO. ISO/FDIS 21448 road vehicles — safety of the intended functionality［S］. Geneva， Switzerland： ISO： 2022.
3	ISO. ISO 26262 road vehicles — functional safety［S］. Geneva， Switzerland： ISO： 2018.
4	UL. UL 4600 safety for the evaluation of autonomous products［S］. 2020.
5	ISO. ISO/TR 4804：2020 road vehicles — safety and cybersecurity for automated driving systems — design， verification and validation［S］. Geneva， Switzerland： ISO： 2020.
6	ISO. ISO 34502 road vehicles — engineering framework and process of scenario-based safety evaluation［S］. 2018.
7	BMW. BMW safety assessment report［R］.BMW GROUP， 2020.
8	BAIDU. Apollo pilot safety report［R］.2018.
9	ABDULKHALEQ A， LAMMERING D， WAGNER S， et al. A systematic approach based on STPA for developing a dependable architecture for fully automated driving vehicles［J］. Procedia Engineering， 2017，179（Supplement C）： 41-51.
10	KAISER B. An integrative solution towards SOTIF and AV safety［R］.ANSYS， 2019.
11	WILLEMSEN D， SCHMEITZ A， FUSCO M. Enabling safe multi-brand platooning for Europe［R］.European Commission， 2018.
12	BECKER C， BREWER J C， YOUNT L. Safety of the intended functionality of lane-centering and lane-changing maneuvers of a generic level 3 highway chauffeur system［R］.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration， 2020.
13	JUNIETZ P， WACHENFELD W， KLONECKI K， et al. Evaluation of different approaches to address safety validation of automated driving［C］. 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems （ITSC）. IEEE， 2018.
14	NEUROHR C， WESTHOFEN L， BUTZ M， et al. Criticality analysis for the verification and validation of automated vehicles［J］. IEEE Access， 2021，9： 18016-18041.
15	STEIMLE M， WEBER N， MAURER M. Toward generating sufficiently valid test case results： a method for systematically assigning test cases to test bench configurations in a scenario-based test approach for automated vehicles［J］. IEEE Access， 2022，10： 6260-6285.
16	JACOBO A， NOBUYUKI U， KUNIO Y， et al. Development of a safety assurance process for autonomous vehicles in Japan［C］. Proceedings of ESV Conference， 2019.
17	LI Y， DUTHON P， COLOMB M， et al. What happens for a ToF LiDAR in fog？［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2020，22（11）： 6670-6681.
18	SCHÖNEMANN V， WINNER H， GLOCK T， et al. Fault tree-based derivation of safety requirements for automated driving on the example of cooperative valet parking［C］. 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles （ESV）， 2019.
19	KIROVSKII O M， GORELOV V A. Driver assistance systems： analysis， tests and the safety case. ISO 26262 and ISO PAS 21448［J］. IOP Conference Series： Materials Science and Engineering， 2019，534（1）.
20	KRAMER B， NEUROHR C， BÜKER M， et al. Identification and quantification of hazardous scenarios for automated driving［C］. International Symposium on Model-Based Safety and Assessment. Springer， 2020.
21	NAGATSUKA T， MATSUMOTO T. Evaluation framework for performance limitation of autonomous systems under sensor attack［C］. International Conference on Computer Safety， Reliability， and Security. Springer， 2021.
22	陈君毅，刘力豪，周堂瑞，等. 城市自动驾驶决策系统安全分析与策略设计［J］. 同济大学学报（自然科学版）， 2020，48（12）： 1810-1817.
	CHEN J Y，LIU L H，ZHOU T R， et al. Safety analysis and strategy design for decision system of urban autonomous driving vehicles［J］. Journal of Tongji University（Natural Science）， 2020，48（12）： 1810-1817.
23	CAPITO L， REDMILL K A. Methodology for hazard identification and mitigation strategies applied to an overtaking assistant ADAS［C］. 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference （ITSC）. IEEE， 2021.
24	XING X， ZHOU T， CHEN J， et al. A hazard analysis approach based on STPA and finite state machine for autonomous vehicles［C］. 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2021.
25	ADEE A， GANSCH R， LIGGESMEYER P， et al. Discovery of perception performance limiting triggering conditions in automated driving［C］. 2021 5th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety （ICSRS）. IEEE， 2021.
26	MARTIN H， WINKLER B， GRUBMÜLLER S， et al. Identification of performance limitations of sensing technologies for automated driving［C］. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo （ICCVE）， 2019.
27	KHATUN M， GLAß M， JUNG R. Scenario-based extended hara incorporating functional safety and SOTIF for autonomous driving［C］. Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference， 2020.
28	SCHWALB E. Analysis of safety of the intended use （SOTIF）［R］. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration， 2019.
29	LURIE O， MILLER J. Hazard analysis and risk assessment beyond ISO 26262： management of complexity via parametrization ［C］. SAE Paper 2018-01-1067.
30	JUNIETZ P， STEININGER U， WINNER H. Macroscopic safety requirements for highly automated driving［J］. Transportation Research Record， 2019，2673（3）： 1-10.
31	KALRA N， PADDOCK S M. Driving to safety： how many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability？［J］. Transportation Research Part A： Policy and Practice， 2016，94： 182-193.
32	RIEDMAIER S， PONN T， LUDWIG D， et al. Survey on scenario-based safety assessment of automated vehicles［J］. IEEE Access， 2020，8： 87456-87477.
33	HEJASE M， BARBIER M， OZGUNER U， et al. A validation methodology for the minimization of unknown unknowns in autonomous vehicle systems［C］. 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）， 2020.
34	BAGSCHIK G， MENZEL T， MAURER M. Ontology based scene creation for the development of automated vehicles［C］. 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2018.
35	HUANG A， XING X， ZHOU T， et al. A safety analysis and verification framework for autonomous vehicles based on the identification of triggering events［C］. SAE Paper 2021-01-5010.
36	DING W， CHEN B， LI B， et al. Multimodal safety-critical scenarios generation for decision-making algorithms evaluation［J］. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters， 2021，6（2）： 1551-1558.
37	GOODFELLOW I J， SHLENS J， SZEGEDY C. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2014.
38	ZHANG S， PENG H， NAGESHRAO S， et al. Generating socially acceptable perturbations for efficient evaluation of autonomous vehicles［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops， 2020.
39	HASIRLIOGLU S， RIENER A. A general approach for simulating rain effects on sensor data in real and virtual environments［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles， 2019，5（3）： 426-438.
40	ÅSLJUNG D， NILSSON J， FREDRIKSSON J. Using extreme value theory for vehicle level safety validation and implications for autonomous vehicles［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles， 2017，2（4）： 288-297.
41	ZHAO D， HUANG X， PENG H， et al. Accelerated evaluation of automated vehicles in car-following maneuvers［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2017，19（3）： 733-744.
42	AKAGI Y， KATO R， KITAJIMA S， et al. A risk-index based sampling method to generate scenarios for the evaluation of automated driving vehicle safety［C］. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference （ITSC）. IEEE， 2019.
43	KOREN M， ALSAIF S， LEE R， et al. Adaptive stress testing for autonomous vehicles［C］. 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2018.
44	PONN T， MÜLLER F， DIERMEYER F. Systematic analysis of the sensor coverage of automated vehicles using phenomenological sensor models［C］. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2019.
45	MAHMUD S S， FERREIRA L， HOQUE M S， et al. Application of proximal surrogate indicators for safety evaluation： a review of recent developments and research needs［J］. IATSS Research， 2017，41（4）： 153-163.
46	ZHAO T， YURTSEVER E， PAULSON J， et al. Automated vehicle safety guarantee， verification and certification： a survey［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2022.
47	SHALEV-SHWARTZ S， SHAMMAH S， SHASHUA A. On a formal model of safe and scalable self-driving cars［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2017.
48	TUNCALI C E， KAPINSKI J， ITO H， et al. Reasoning about safety of learning-enabled components in autonomous cyber-physical systems［C］. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Design Automation Conference， 2018.
49	JOHNSON B， HAVLAK F， KRESS GAZIT H， et al. Experimental evaluation and formal analysis of high‐level tasks with dynamic obstacle anticipation on a full‐sized autonomous vehicle［J］. Journal of Field Robotics， 2017，34（5）： 897-911.
50	URBAN C， MINÉ A. A review of formal methods applied to machine learning［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2021.
51	BIRCH J， BLACKBURN D， BOTHAM J， et al. A structured argument for assuring safety of the intended functionality （SOTIF）［C］. International Conference on Computer Safety， Reliability， and Security. Springer， 2020.
52	ADEE A， MUNK P， GANSCH R， et al. Uncertainty representation with extended evidential networks for modeling safety of the intended functionality （SOTIF）［C］. European Safety and Reliability Conference （ESREL2020）， 2020.
53	POST K， DAVEY C K. Integrating SOTIF and agile systems engineering［R］. SAE International， 2019.
54	SABERI A K， HEGGE J， FRUEHLING T， et al. Beyond SOTIF： black swans and formal methods［C］. 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference （SysCon）， 2020.
55	COLLIN A， BILKA A， PENDLETON S， et al. Safety of the intended driving behavior using rulebooks［C］. 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）， 2020.
56	JAIN A， DEL PERO L， GRIMMETT H， et al. Autonomy 2.0： why is self-driving always 5 years away？［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2021.
57	WONG K， WANG S， REN M， et al. Identifying unknown instances for autonomous driving［C］. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research， 2020.
58	SHORTEN C， KHOSHGOFTAAR T M. A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning［J］. Journal of Big Data， 2019，6（1）： 1-48.
59	KIM J， PARK C. End-to-end ego lane estimation based on sequential transfer learning for self-driving cars［C］. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops （CVPRW）， 2017.
60	DHANANJAYA M M， KUMAR V R， YOGAMANI S. Weather and light level classification for autonomous driving： dataset， baseline and active learning［C］. 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference （ITSC）. IEEE， 2021.
61	TREMBLAY M， HALDER S S， de CHARETTE R， et al. Rain rendering for evaluating and improving robustness to bad weather［J］. International Journal of Computer Vision， 2021，129（2）： 341-360.
62	MIYATO T， MAEDA S， KOYAMA M， et al. Virtual adversarial training： a regularization method for supervised and semi-supervised learning［J］. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence， 2018，41（8）： 1979-1993.
63	KUTILA M， PYYKÖNEN P， JOKELA M， et al. Benchmarking automotive lidar performance in arctic conditions［C］. 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems （ITSC）， 2020.
64	KIM Y G， LEE S H， KIM B S. Measurement of rainfall using sensor signal generated from vehicle rain sensor［J］. Journal of The Korean Society of Civil Engineers， 2018，38（2）： 227-235.
65	HAURUM J B， BAHNSEN C H， MOESLUND T B. Is it raining outside？ detection of rainfall using general-purpose surveillance cameras［C］. CVPR Workshops， 2019.
66	KLINGNER M， BAR A， MROSS M， et al. Improving online performance prediction for semantic segmentation［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition， 2021.
67	RAMANAGOPAL M S， ANDERSON C， VASUDEVAN R， et al. Failing to learn： autonomously identifying perception failures for self-driving cars［J］. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters， 2018，3（4）： 3860-3867.
68	BIJELIC M， GRUBER T， RITTER W. A benchmark for lidar sensors in fog： is detection breaking down？［C］. 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）， 2018.
69	ZANG S， DING M， SMITH D， et al. The impact of adverse weather conditions on autonomous vehicles： how rain， snow， fog， and hail affect the performance of a self-driving car［J］. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine， 2019，14（2）： 103-111.
70	ZHANG H， PATEL V M. Densely connected pyramid dehazing network［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition， 2018.
71	ZHANG H， SINDAGI V， PATEL V M. Image de-raining using a conditional generative adversarial network［J］. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology， 2019，30（11）： 3943-3956.
72	HAO Z， YOU S， LI Y， et al. Learning from synthetic photorealistic raindrop for single image raindrop removal［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops， 2019.
73	INTELLIGENCE S S. Laser measurement systems technical description［R］.2019.
74	HUANG S， LE T， JAW D. DSNet： joint semantic learning for object detection in inclement weather conditions［J］. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence， 2021，43（8）： 2623-2633.
75	POUS N， GINGRAS D， GRUYER D， et al. Intelligent vehicle embedded sensors fault detection and isolation using analytical redundancy and nonlinear transformations［J］. Journal of Control Science and Engineering， 2017，2017： 1763934.
76	PFEUFFER A， DIETMAYER K. Optimal sensor data fusion architecture for object detection in adverse weather conditions［C］. 2018 21st International Conference on Information Fusion （FUSION）， 2018.
77	BIJELIC M， GRUBER T， MANNAN F， et al. Seeing through fog without seeing fog： deep multimodal sensor fusion in unseen adverse weather［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition， 2020.
78	SHAN M， NARULA K， WONG Y F， et al. Demonstrations of cooperative perception： safety and robustness in connected and automated vehicle operations［J］. Sensors， 2020，21（1）： 200.
79	ZENG W， WANG S， LIAO R， et al. Dsdnet： deep structured self-driving network［C］. European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer， 2020.
80	LEE C W， NAYEER N， GARCIA D E， et al. Identifying the operational design domain for an automated driving system through assessed risk［C］. 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2020.
81	BERNHARD J， POLLOK S， KNOLL A. Addressing inherent uncertainty： risk-sensitive behavior generation for automated driving using distributional reinforcement learning［C］. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）， 2019.
82	CAMPO D， BAYDOUN M， MARIN P， et al. Learning probabilistic awareness models for detecting abnormalities in vehicle motions［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2019，21（3）： 1308-1320.
83	PEK C， MANZINGER S， KOSCHI M， et al. Using online verification to prevent autonomous vehicles from causing accidents［J］. Nature Machine Intelligence， 2020，2（9）： 518-528.
84	LÜTJENS B， EVERETT M， HOW J P. Safe reinforcement learning with model uncertainty estimates［C］. 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation （ICRA）. IEEE， 2019.
85	GARCíA J， FERNÁNDEZ F. A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning［J］. Journal of Machine Learning Research， 2015，16（1）： 1437-1480.
86	李克强，常雪阳，李家文，等. 智能网联汽车云控系统及其实现［J］. 汽车工程， 2020，42（12）： 1595-1605.
	LI K Q， CHANG X Y， LI J W， et al. Cloud control system for intelligent and connected vehicles and its application［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2020，42（12）： 1595-1605.
87	WANG B， LUO Y， ZHONG Z， et al. Robust non-fragile fault tolerant control for ensuring the safety of the intended functionality of cooperative adaptive cruise control［J］. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems， 2022.
88	ZHANG Y， LINTERN G， GAO L， et al. A study on functional safety， SOTIF and RSS from the perspective of human-automation interaction［C］. SAE Paper 2021-01-0858.
89	ABBOOD H， AL-NUAIMY W， AL-ATABY A， et al. Prediction of driver fatigue［C］. Approaches and Open Challenges： 2014 14th UK Workshop on Computational Intelligence （UKCI）. IEEE， 2014.
90	KOO J， KWAC J， JU W， et al. Why did my car just do that？ explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding， trust， and performance［J］. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing （IJIDeM）， 2015，9（4）： 269-275.
91	CHANDRA R， BHATTACHARYA U， RONCAL C， et al. Robusttp： end-to-end trajectory prediction for heterogeneous road-agents in dense traffic with noisy sensor inputs［C］. ACM Computer Science in Cars Symposium，2019.
92	SUN L， ZHAN W， CHAN C， et al. Behavior planning of autonomous cars with social perception［C］. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2019.
93	IVANOVIC B， LEE K， TOKMAKOV P， et al. Heterogeneous-agent trajectory forecasting incorporating class uncertainty［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2021.
94	IVANOVIC B， LIN Y， SHRIVASTAVA S， et al. Propagating state uncertainty through trajectory forecasting［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2021.
95	DENNIS L A， FISHER M. Verifiable self-aware agent-based autonomous systems［J］. Proceedings of the IEEE， 2020，108（7）： 1011-1026.
96	RESCHKA A， BAGSCHIK G， ULBRICH S， et al. Ability and skill graphs for system modeling， online monitoring， and decision support for vehicle guidance systems［C］. 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium （IV）. IEEE， 2015.
97	BAGSCHIK G， NOLTE M， ERNST S， et al. A system's perspective towards an architecture framework for safe automated vehicles［C］. 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems （ITSC）. IEEE， 2018.
98	NOLTE M， JATZKOWSKI I， ERNST S， et al. Supporting safe decision making through holistic system-level representations & monitoring--a summary and taxonomy of self-representation concepts for automated vehicles［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2020.
99	ULBRICH S， RESCHKA A， RIEKEN J， et al. Towards a functional system architecture for automated vehicles［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2017.
100	CHALAPATHY R， CHAWLA S. Deep learning for anomaly detection： a survey［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2019.
101	LOHDEFINK J， FEHRLING J， KLINGNER M， et al. Self-supervised domain mismatch estimation for autonomous perception［C］. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops， 2020.
102	RICHTER C， ROY N. Safe visual navigation via deep learning and novelty detection［J］. Robotics： Science and Systems Foundation， 2017.
103	HENRIKSSON J， BERGER C， BORG M， et al. Towards structured evaluation of deep neural network supervisors［C］. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Testing （AITest）. IEEE， 2019.
104	HENRIKSSON J， BERGER C， BORG M， et al. Performance analysis of out-of-distribution detection on trained neural networks［J］. Information and Software Technology， 2021，130： 106409.
105	GAL Y， GHAHRAMANI Z. Dropout as a bayesian approximation［C］. Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning： International Conference on Machine Learning， 2016.
106	LAKSHMINARAYANAN B， PRITZEL A， BLUNDELL C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles［C］. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems， 2017.
107	AMINI A， SCHWARTING W， SOLEIMANY A， et al. Deep evidential regression［C］. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems，2020.
108	KARPATHY A. Multi-task learning in the wilderness［EB/OL］. （2019-06-15）［2022-03-30］. https：//slideslive.com/38917690/multitask-learning-in-the-wilderness.
109	SHAHEEN K， HANIF M A， HASAN O， et al. Continual learning for real-world autonomous systems： algorithms， challenges and frameworks［J］. arXiv preprint arXiv：， 2021.

[1]	郝建平,苏炎召,钟志华,黄晋. 面向智能汽车的SOA架构及服务调度机制研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(9): 1563-1572.
[2]	吴思宇,于文浩,邢星宇,张玉新,李楚照,李雪轲,古昕昱,李云巍,马小涵,路伟,王政,郝圳茂,王红,李骏. 基于关键场景的预期功能安全双闭环测试验证方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(9): 1583-1607.
[3]	赵高士,陈龙,蔡英凤,廉玉波,王海,刘擎超,滕成龙. 融合复杂网络和记忆增强网络的轨迹预测技术[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(9): 1608-1616.
[4]	白先旭,左瑜,李维汉,石琴,李楚照,赵树廉,陈炯. 自动紧急制动系统控制模块的SOTIF量化评价[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(9): 1655-1665.
[5]	吴新政,邢星宇,刘力豪,沈勇,陈君毅. 基于错误注入的决策规划系统抗扰性测试与分析[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(8): 1428-1437.
[6]	胡启慧,蔡英凤,王海,陈龙,董钊志,刘擎超. 基于层次图注意的异构多目标轨迹预测方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(8): 1448-1456.
[7]	高翔,陈龙,王歆叶,熊晓夏,李祎承,陈月霞. 基于轨迹预测的智能汽车行驶风险评估方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(4): 588-597.
[8]	胡杰,朱琪,陈锐鹏,张敏超,张志豪,刘昊岩. 引入必经点约束的智能汽车全局路径规划[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(3): 350-360.
[9]	张紫微,郑玲,李以农,乔旭强,郑浩,王戡. 考虑前车运动不确定性的多目标自适应巡航控制[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(3): 361-371.
[10]	刘正发,吴亚,刘佩根,顾荣琦,陈广. 基于特征和标签联合分布匹配的智能驾驶跨域自适应目标检测[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(11): 2082-2091.
[11]	赵树廉,来飞,李克强,陈涛,孟璋劼,唐逸超,吴思宇,田浩东. 基于数字孪生技术的智能汽车测试方法研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2023, 45(1): 42-51.
[12]	段顺昌,白先旭,石琴,李维汉,何冠男. 汽车自动紧急制动系统控制策略的预期功能安全设计[J]. 汽车工程, 2022, 44(9): 1305-1317.
[13]	汪梓豪,蔡英凤,王海,陈龙,熊晓夏. 基于单目视觉运动估计的周边多目标轨迹预测方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2022, 44(9): 1318-1326.
[14]	赵超,卜德旭,曹礼鹏,李克强,罗禹贡. 强降雨场景下自适应巡航控制系统的安全控制策略[J]. 汽车工程, 2022, 44(8): 1117-1125.
[15]	梁旺,秦兆博,陈亮,边有钢,胡满江. 基于改进BP神经网络的智能车纵向控制方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2022, 44(8): 1162-1172.