Gaps to be addressed in the Common Evaluation Methodology
In the ARCADE 23 November 2020 workshop on Common Evaluation Methodology (CEM), a long list of methodology gaps were identified (see Proceedings, Chapter 4). Evaluating CCAM and following FESTA may be quite difficult and complex. Methodology helps but does not change complexity.
The ARCADE team further analysed the gaps and identified where we can expect to get information to address these gaps. The gaps are organised along the FESTA-V.
We could classify the information needed to (partially) address the gaps into four categories:
- FESTA: the topic is addressed in the FESTA handbook version 8.
- Process: processes such as harmonisation, standardisation or management, not further specified. These processes could, for example, be performed by standardisation bodies, but are at the moment outside the scope of an evaluation methodology.
- Projects: the topic is addressed by CCAM projects running after 2020.
- CCAM call: the topic will be addressed by one of the upcoming CCAM projects from the 2021 and 2022 calls
The table was first created at the end of 2021 and should be seen as an inventory of information sources that could be used to address the gaps. You are invited to suggest further additions and new developments (please use Feedback form).
Gap (organised along the FESTA V):
|Progress expected from:|
|1. Implementation plan|
|1.1. Framework for coordinating FOTs with multiple locations, OEMs, countries ||Harmonisation |
|1.2 Hard to compare FOTs or between multiple locations, countries or OEMs||Harmonisation |
|2. Function identification and description|
|2.1. Common description method (ontology, terminology, format) for ODD, use cases and services (and secondly requirements, vehicles, functions, accidents)||Standardisation |
|3. Use cases|
|3.1. Common source for describing ODD in terms of driving behaviour, accidents, scenarios and edge cases||Standardisation |
|3.2. Method to define, find and use edge cases||EU Hi-Drive|
|4. Research questions and hypotheses|
|4.1. Method to define and prioritise research questions||FESTA|
|4.2. Method to define future scenarios||FESTA |
|5. Performance indicators|
|5.1. Common set of safety indicators with known relation to safety impact||FESTA |
|5.2. Accepted set of indicators or model for communication and positioning||EU HEADSTART|
|6. Study design|
|6.1. Approaches for achieving a realistic and rich user experience with prototype vehicles ||Complex by nature|
No approach identified
|6.2. Method to compare human and automated driving||L3-Pilot |
|6.3. Reference to compare new services with. |
What is the baseline for a service in impact assessment?
|6.4. Method to define and measure a clear baseline for a FOT impact assessment. What is better?||FESTA |
|6.5. Shared assumptions on human driving or shared human driving models||HORIZON-CL5-2022-D6-01-03|
|6.6. Method to validate cybersecurity||HORIZON-CL5-2021-D6-01-04|
|6.7. Method to balance scale of experiment versus generalisation acceptable in impact assessment||FESTA|
|6.8. Methodology that can be scaled down for small projects or handles multiple scales of research questions||Micro-FESTA|
|7. Ethical and legal issues|
|7.1. Need for an innovation friendly framework for running pilots, FOTs and operation ||Project management |
|8. Data acquisition|
|8.1. Data sharing: approaches to handling lack of data and lack of willingness to share||Data sharing Framework|
|8.2. Guidelines for efficient and effective process to public road test permission||National type approval bodies|
|8.3. Common solutions for data management (release, flow, models, formats)||Standardisation |
Data sharing Framework
L3Pilot Common Data Format
|8.4. Agreed principles for data sharing among industry and research, respecting industrial sensitivity of the data||Data sharing Framework|
|8.5. Practical solutions for GDPR-compatible handling of video||Data sharing Framework|
|8.6. Overview of urban traffic environments||EU FAME|
|9. Data analysis|
|9.1. Lack of accident data for socio-economic impact assessment||EU V4Safety|
|9.2. Approaches to simulate at multiple levels of detail (sensor, AD function, vehicle, traffic, city), including effect of safety strategies at vehicle level on traffic level||EU V4Safety|
|9.3. Standardisation of modelling of scenarios and AD functions in simulations||Harmonisation |
|9.4. Handling diversity in sensors, data sources, locations, formats – preferably in an automated process||Industry|
|10. Impact assessment|
|10.1. Shared framework to come from KPIs to assessment (data evaluation architecture, combining various test results)||FESTA|
|10.2. Shared assumptions to be used in impact assessment and generalisation||EU FAME|
|10.3. Shared assumptions on changing human behaviour with higher share of CCAM||EU Hi-Drive|
|10.4. Shared assumptions to estimate impact on VRUs||EU V4Safety|
|10.5. Accepted method to come from test results with prototypes to impact assessment for mature CCAM and full scale||FESTA |
|10.6. Shared future scenarios for generalisation of impact assessment||EU FAME|
|10.7. Methods for evaluating impacts on certain accident types||FESTA |
|10.8. Methods to evaluate AI processes and decisions||HORIZON-CL5-2022-D6-01-05|
Have feedback on this section??? Let us know!
Please add your feedback in the field below.
Your feedback has been sent!
Thank you for your input.
An error occured...
Please try again later.