A Visual Logic for the Description of Highway Traffic ... · I 1Motivation I Logic developed in...
Transcript of A Visual Logic for the Description of Highway Traffic ... · I 1Motivation I Logic developed in...
I A Visual Logic for the Description of Highway Traffic Scenarios
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien{kemper,etzien}@offis.de
OFFIS Institute for Information TechnologyR&D Division Transportation
December 6, 2013
CSD&M2013, Paris, France
I 1 Motivation
I Logic developed in context of advanced driver assistance system (ADAS)
development
I Specify driving manoeuvres as (sequences of) traffic situations on the highway
⇒ Relations and interactions between vehicles/vehicle components
I Interface between developers and scientists
I Simple and intuitive, easy to learn and use
I Formal foundation and semantics for further analysis
⇒ Bridge terminology gap between different domain experts
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 2 The Visual Logic (VL)Atoms
I Basic building blocks of the VL
I Single atom: traffic “snapshot”
I Sequence of atoms: traffic scenario (with evolution)
I Two parts
I Traffic View: spatial relations of vehicles
I Communication Description: communications/synchronisations during situation
sketched in Traffic View
I Compositionality of Atoms: if both Traffic View and Communication Description
are composable (later)
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 3 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Basics
I Describe spatial relations of vehicles
I Set of lane separators spans “canvas”
I Traffic flow from left to right, orientational notions accordingly
I Position defined via vehicle sides
I Separate position relations for two dimensions
ls1
ls2
ls3
lateral
longitudinal
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 3 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Basics
I Describe spatial relations of vehicles
I Set of lane separators spans “canvas”
I Traffic flow from left to right, orientational notions accordingly
I Position defined via vehicle sides
I Separate position relations for two dimensions
ls1
ls2
ls3
lateral
longitudinal
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 3 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Basics
I Describe spatial relations of vehicles
I Set of lane separators spans “canvas”
I Traffic flow from left to right, orientational notions accordingly
I Position defined via vehicle sides
I Separate position relations for two dimensions
ls1
ls2
ls3
lateral
longitudinal
left
right
back front
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 3 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Basics
I Describe spatial relations of vehicles
I Set of lane separators spans “canvas”
I Traffic flow from left to right, orientational notions accordingly
I Position defined via vehicle sides
I Separate position relations for two dimensions
ls1
ls2
ls3
lateral
longitudinal
B.l
B.r
B.b B.f
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 4 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Relations
I Longitudinal relations (binary): before (e.g. , ), meets ( , ), overlaps
( , ) (or respective inverse) or equals ( , ) for each pair of vehicles
⇒ induces total order on front/back vehicle sides
I Lateral relations: binary as before, plus unary (high-level) on_lane (e.g. ) or
between_lanes ( ) for each vehicle
⇒ induces total order on left/right vehicle sides and lane separators
I Distance arrows to further restrict relative positions (default: arrow with label
[0,∞[ to next element—not shown in pictures)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 4 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Relations
I Longitudinal relations (binary): before (e.g. , ), meets ( , ), overlaps
( , ) (or respective inverse) or equals ( , ) for each pair of vehicles
⇒ induces total order on front/back vehicle sides
I Lateral relations: binary as before, plus unary (high-level) on_lane (e.g. ) or
between_lanes ( ) for each vehicle
⇒ induces total order on left/right vehicle sides and lane separators
I Distance arrows to further restrict relative positions (default: arrow with label
[0,∞[ to next element—not shown in pictures)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 5 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Constraints
I Each Traffic View translated into spatial constraint
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Implicit assumptions
I (B.l > B.r) ∧ (B.f > B.b) ∧ (R.l > R.r) ∧ ...
I No other vehicles/lanes apart from those depicted
I Compositionality of Traffic Views: if position changes (spatial constraints) adhere
to “physically reasonable” behaviour (details in paper)
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 5 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Constraints
I Each Traffic View translated into spatial constraint
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Implicit assumptions
I (B.l > B.r) ∧ (B.f > B.b) ∧ (R.l > R.r) ∧ ...
I No other vehicles/lanes apart from those depicted
I Compositionality of Traffic Views: if position changes (spatial constraints) adhere
to “physically reasonable” behaviour (details in paper)
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 6 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Composition (Lane Change Example)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
[50,∞[[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc2: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (R.l ≥ ls2) ∧ (ls2 ≥ R.r) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc3: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls3 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls2) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Spatial constraints must be disjoint to find “transition point”
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 6 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Composition (Lane Change Example)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[[50,∞[
[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc2: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (R.l ≥ ls2) ∧ (ls2 ≥ R.r) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc3: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls3 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls2) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Spatial constraints must be disjoint to find “transition point”
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 6 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Composition (Lane Change Example)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[[50,∞[
[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc2: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (R.l ≥ ls2) ∧ (ls2 ≥ R.r) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc3: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls3 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls2) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Spatial constraints must be disjoint to find “transition point”
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 6 The Visual Logic (VL)Traffic View: Composition (Lane Change Example)
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[[50,∞[
[50,∞[
sc1: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls2 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls1) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc2: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (R.l ≥ ls2) ∧ (ls2 ≥ R.r) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
sc3: (ls3 > B.l) ∧ (B.r > ls2) ∧ (ls3 > R.l) ∧ (R.r > ls2) ∧ (R.b - B.f > 50)
I Spatial constraints must be disjoint to find “transition point”
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 7 The Visual Logic (VL)Communication Description
I Specify communications/synchronisations during situation sketched in Traffic View
I Feature subset of Live Sequence Charts (extension of Message Sequence
Charts)⇒ translation into automaton representation
I Communicating instances: communicating parts of vehicles in Traffic View
look set
turn
look unset
turn back
I Compositionality of Communication Descriptions: if set of communicating
instances is identical
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 8 The Visual Logic (VL)Semantics
I For each Atom: annotate Communication Description with spatial constraint
I Translate “single” Communication Description into automaton representation
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
Condition (“barrier synchronisation”) Invariant
look set
turn
sc1
sc1
[50,∞[
look
sc2
[50,∞[
unset
turn back
sc3
sc3
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 8 The Visual Logic (VL)Semantics
I For each Atom: annotate Communication Description with spatial constraint
I Translate “single” Communication Description into automaton representation
ls1
ls2
ls3
[50,∞[
Condition (“barrier synchronisation”) Invariant
look set
turn
sc1
sc1
[50,∞[
look
sc2
[50,∞[
unset
turn back
sc3
sc3
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 8 The Visual Logic (VL)Semantics
I For each Atom: annotate Communication Description with spatial constraint
I Translate “single” Communication Description into automaton representation
look set
turn
sc1
sc1
looksc
2unset
turn back
sc3
sc3
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 8 The Visual Logic (VL)Semantics
I For each Atom: annotate Communication Description with spatial constraint
I Translate “single” Communication Description into automaton representation
look set
turn
sc1
sc1
looksc
2unset
turn back
sc3
sc3
[sc1] [sc1]
[sc1] [sc1]
[sc2] [sc2]
[sc3] [sc3]
[sc3]
sc1
look
set
turn
sc2
look
sc3
unset
turn back
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 9 ApplicationObserver-based Verification
I Use automaton as observer to observe occurence of specified behaviour during
nomal system behaviour
I Example
I Goal: Check usability of ADAS interface
I VL specification to describe driver-ADAS interaction during driving manoeuvres
I System behaviour given as set of sample trajectories (driving simulator, human
test driver with prototypical implementation of ADAS)
I Test driver behaviour compliant with VL specification?
I Yes: Final implementation of prototype
I No: Find out why not (non-straightforward!), adapt either VL specification or
prototype, check again
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 10 Conclusion
I VL to describe highway traffic scenarios with communications
I Purely graphical specification of scenarios and manoeuvres
I Intuitive and easy to understand
I Yet with formal semantics
I VL as interface between different domain experts
I System engineers and traffic psychologists developing ADASs
I Scientists modelling, analysing and verifying behaviour of ADASs
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
I 11 Future Work
I Extend VL with
I Full set of LSC features (for Communication Descriptions), e.g.
I Desired or forbidden behaviour?
I Behaviour to be observed once or repeatedly?
I Partial observation: non-occurence or major system failure?
I Vehicle-specific properties like speed or acceleration
I Appearance and disappearance of lanes
I Parallel work on generalisation of VL
I General 2D plane,
I User-defined (spatial) relations,
I Straight or arched trajectories, ...
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013
Thank You!
Stephanie Kemper, Christoph Etzien A Visual Logic for Traffic Scenarios December 6, 2013