Robert Graubohm

Nayel Fabian Salem, Marcus Nolte, Veronica Haber et al.

Vehicles in public traffic that are equipped with Automated Driving Systems are subject to a number of expectations: Among other aspects, their behavior should be safe, conforming to the rules of the road and provide mobility to their users. This poses challenges for the developers of such systems: Developers are responsible for specifying this behavior, for example, in terms of requirements at system design time. As we will discuss in the article, this specification always involves the need for assumptions and trade-offs. As a result, insufficiencies in such a behavior specification can occur that can potentially lead to unsafe system behavior. In order to support the identification of specification insufficiencies, requirements and respective assumptions need to be made explicit. In this article, we propose the Semantic Norm Behavior Analysis as an ontology-based approach to specify the behavior for an Automated Driving System equipped vehicle. We use ontologies to formally represent specified behavior for a targeted operational environment, and to establish traceability between specified behavior and the addressed stakeholder needs. Furthermore, we illustrate the application of the Semantic Norm Behavior Analysis in a German legal context with two example scenarios and evaluate our results. Our evaluation shows that the explicit documentation of assumptions in the behavior specification supports both the identification of specification insufficiencies and their treatment. Therefore, this article provides requirements, terminology and an according methodology to facilitate ontology-based behavior specifications in automated driving.

Marvin Loba, Robert Graubohm, Niklas Braun et al.

Despite the growing number of automated vehicles on public roads, operating such systems in open contexts inevitably involves incidents. Developing a defensible case that the residual risk is reduced to a reasonable (societally acceptable) level is hence a prerequisite to be prepared for potential liability cases. A "safety argumentation" is a common means to represent this case. In this paper, we contribute to the state of the art in terms of process guidance on argumentation creation and maintenance - aiming to promote a safety-argumentation-by-design paradigm, which mandates co-developing both the system and argumentation from the earliest stages. Initially, we extend a systematic design model for automated driving functions with an argumentation layer to address prevailing misconceptions regarding the development of safety arguments in a process context. Identified limitations of this extension motivate our complementary design of a dedicated argumentation life cycle that serves as an additional process viewpoint. Correspondingly, we define literature- and expert-based process requirements. To illustrate the safety argumentation life cycle that we propose as a result of implementing these consolidated requirements, we demonstrate principles of the introduced process phases (baselining, evolution, continuous maintenance) by an argumentation example on an operational design domain exit response.