Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1906.01061

Localization Requirements for Autonomous Vehicles

Tyler G. R. Reid·Sarah E. Houts·Robert Cammarata·Graham Mills·Siddharth Agarwal·Ankit Vora·Gaurav Pandey
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles require precise knowledge of their position and orientation in all weather and traffic conditions for path planning, perception, control, and general safe operation. Here we derive these requirements for autonomous vehicles based on first principles. We begin with the safety integrity level, defining the allowable probability of failure per hour of operation based on desired improvements on road safety today. This draws comparisons with the localization integrity levels required in aviation and rail where similar numbers are derived at 10^-8 probability of failure per hour of operation. We then define the geometry of the problem, where the aim is to maintain knowledge that the vehicle is within its lane and to determine what road level it is on. Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical localization error bounds (alert limits) and 95% accuracy requirements are derived based on US road geometry standards (lane width, curvature, and vertical clearance) and allowable vehicle dimensions. For passenger vehicles operating on freeway roads, the result is a required lateral error bound of 0.57 m (0.20 m, 95%), a longitudinal bound of 1.40 m (0.48 m, 95%), a vertical bound of 1.30 m (0.43 m, 95%), and an attitude bound in each direction of 1.50 deg (0.51 deg, 95%). On local streets, the road geometry makes requirements more stringent where lateral and longitudinal error bounds of 0.29 m (0.10 m, 95%) are needed with an orientation requirement of 0.50 deg (0.17 deg, 95%).

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.SYeess.SPeess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tyler G. R. Reid, Sarah E. Houts, Robert Cammarata, Graham Mills, Siddharth Agarwal, Ankit Vora, Gaurav Pandey. 2019-06-03. Localization Requirements for Autonomous Vehicles. https://doi.org/10.4271/12-02-03-0012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗