论文标题
轨迹数据集的自动分析框架
An Automated Analysis Framework for Trajectory Datasets
论文作者
论文摘要
对于高度自动化车辆的安全验证,公路使用者的轨迹数据集变得越来越重要。几个自然主义的轨迹数据集都发布了每条超过10.000个轨道的数据集,其他轨道将遵循。考虑到这一数量的数据,有必要轻松地对这些数据集进行比较以获取概述。到目前为止,数据集的提供的信息主要限于元数据和定性描述,这些描述主要与其他数据集不一致。对于用户而言,这不足以区分新兴数据集以进行特定于应用程序的选择。因此,在这项工作中提出了自动分析框架。从分析单个轨道,14个基本特征(所谓的检测类型)开始,并将其用作该框架的基础。为了准确描述每个流量方案,将检测细分为常见指标,聚类方法和异常检测。这些是使用模块化方法组合的。这些检测分为新的分数,以定量描述每个轨道数据的三个定义属性:相互作用,异常和相关性。这三个分数是根据不同的抽象层的层次计算得出的,不仅在数据集之间提供概述,还为轨道,空间区域和各个情况提供了概述。因此,可以实现数据集之间的客观比较。此外,它可以有助于更深入地了解记录的基础架构及其对道路用户行为的影响。为了测试框架的有效性,进行了一项研究以将分数与人类感知进行比较。此外,比较了几个数据集。
Trajectory datasets of road users have become more important in the last years for safety validation of highly automated vehicles. Several naturalistic trajectory datasets with each more than 10.000 tracks were released and others will follow. Considering this amount of data, it is necessary to be able to compare these datasets in-depth with ease to get an overview. By now, the datasets' own provided information is mainly limited to meta-data and qualitative descriptions which are mostly not consistent with other datasets. This is insufficient for users to differentiate the emerging datasets for application-specific selection. Therefore, an automated analysis framework is proposed in this work. Starting with analyzing individual tracks, fourteen elementary characteristics, so-called detection types, are derived and used as the base of this framework. To describe each traffic scenario precisely, the detections are subdivided into common metrics, clustering methods and anomaly detection. Those are combined using a modular approach. The detections are composed into new scores to describe three defined attributes of each track data quantitatively: interaction, anomaly and relevance. These three scores are calculated hierarchically for different abstract layers to provide an overview not just between datasets but also for tracks, spatial regions and individual situations. So, an objective comparison between datasets can be realized. Furthermore, it can help to get a deeper understanding of the recorded infrastructure and its effect on road user behavior. To test the validity of the framework, a study is conducted to compare the scores with human perception. Additionally, several datasets are compared.