Print 20 comment(s) - last by grant2.. on Jul 29 at 6:41 PM

System is designed to be less-intrusive then full-autopilot

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has developed a system called "intelligent co-pilot".  Rather than aiming for fully autonomous artificial intelligence-driven driving, à la Google Inc.'s (GOOGself-driving car project, the new MIT study focuses on a "semi-autonomous" system.

I. Hunting for Safety

According to Sterling Anderson, a PhD student in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, most current commercially implemented algorithms hunt for static clues in their environment, such as the curb.

This isn't how the human driver functions.  Comments Mr. Anderson, "The problem is, humans don’t think that way.  When you and I drive, [we don’t] choose just one path and obsessively follow it. Typically you and I see a lane or a parking lot, and we say, ‘Here is the field of safe travel, here’s the entire region of the roadway I can use, and I’m not going to worry about remaining on a specific line, as long as I’m safely on the roadway and I avoid collisions."

To mirror that human mind-set the MIT team's algorithm uses so-called "homotopies" -- probable safe zones in the environment.  The environment is triangulated, as the driver is drives to determine if the driver is crossing the border from safety to danger.

When such an event is detected, the car's AI takes over and steers the car around the obstacle, back into a homotopic (safe) zone.

The team has performed 1,200 trials in which they drive normally, but then abruptly head on a collision course with a construction barrel.  Most times the car has been able to avoid the collision.  The few incidents where there was a collision appear to have stemmed from camera failures.

The tests were performed on a course in Saline, Mich., a city in the state's southeast Washtenaw County.

Eaton Corp. intelligent truck technology manager Benjamin Saltsman praises the system for its minimalist approach.  He says that the system uses less computation power and fewer sensors than fully autonomous alternatives from Google and Ford Motor Comp. (F).

Comments Mr. Saltsman, "The implications of [Anderson's] system is it makes it lighter in terms of sensors and computational requirements than what a fully autonomous vehicle would require.  This simplification makes it a lot less costly, and closer in terms of potential implementation."

II. Next -- Using a Smartphone

Mr. Anderson isn't completely satisfied with the system, however, as he fears it could lure beginning drivers to rely on the collision avoidance as a crutch and perform more risky maneuvers.  On the flip side of the coin experienced drivers may be frustrated with the system for overriding dangerous maneuvers.

Still, he's convinced the technology may be eventually fine tuned to be relatively pleasing for the masses and save lives.  

Fresh off a presentation at the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium in Spain, hosted by the Polytechnic School of the University of Alcalá in Madrid, Spain, the team is working to scale down their invention to an even simpler system.

Mr. Anderson and Karl Iagnemma, a principal research scientist in MIT’s Robotic Mobility Group, the other author of the work, will next look to use a dashboard mounted smartphone (which offers a camera, accelerometer, and gyroscope) to perform identical collision detection.

The MIT researchers next want to make the system capable of running
on a cell-phone using only its minimal sensors.

The ongoing research is funded by grants from the United States Army Research Office and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Source: MIT

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: One barrel?
By Gurthang on 7/17/2012 9:40:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yea, that is not a good example like the ones the previous poster made. In your case the death was caused by colapse of the vehicle structure. The seatbelts did their job keeping the occupants in the usually safer location inside the vehicle. Had the structure not collapsed so badily or the location of that person's "exit" from the vehicle resulted in a being thrown into a oncomming traffic or worse we would not be having this conversation.

All saftey equipment has its limits and mostly they are one of cost. Though sometimes technology of the time limits what can be done. Like the refinement of airbag systems, most of the sensors and CPU power that enable all of that control just didn't exist when they were first created. Even seatbelts with the modern pretensioning and seat designs to keep you in the right spot and the belt at it most effective beat the heck out of those old school lap only belts that came first.

These technologies have a place and even if we don't want to admit it very few of us are as good a driver as we often claim to be. I know I would not mind something like this that might prevent the car from hitting something in my blind spot or prevent me from rear-ending someone because they suddenly hit the breaks while I was focused on changing lanes in busy traffic.

One of my favorite car improvement ideas has been to take the rear camer idea and use a funny mirror on the antenna mast and some software to correct the distortions so that you see not just the rear but the whole blind "zone" almose as if you were flying above the car. Though I think that a HUD and some simple lidar/sonar/radar which displays nearby car level obstructions with a little clean-up might work as well if not better.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki