Hello !
Trace: • Controller • Challenges of Autonomous Drones • Conversor Analógico-para-Digital • Classical and AI-Based Control Strategies • Passive infrared sensor (PIR) • Mostrador LCD • IoT Communication and Networking Technologies • IoT Hardware and Cybersecurity • 1-wire temperature sensor

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
en:av:autonomy_and_autonomous_systems:autonomy:autonomy_levels [2021/06/11 10:32] – agrisniken:av:autonomy_and_autonomous_systems:autonomy:autonomy_levels [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 ===== Autonomy levels ===== ===== Autonomy levels =====
 Why one should worry about a particular autonomy level scale? There are several good reasons for this: Why one should worry about a particular autonomy level scale? There are several good reasons for this:
-  * Depending on autonomy level system owner might expect particular performance and functionality, as we do with technology readiness levels (TRLs) or other classification scales +  * Depending on autonomy level system owner might expect particular performance and functionality, as we do with technology readiness levels (TRLs) or other classification scales; 
-  * Different regulations might be applied to systems of different autonomy levels +  * Different regulations might be applied to systems of different autonomy levels; 
-  * Sometimes it is necessary to forecast the potential performance of the autonomous system for mission planning or design purposes;+  * Sometimes it is necessary to forecast the potential performance of the autonomous system for mission planning or design purposes.
  
 Besides a plain autonomy level definition, several models have been proposed for assessing UMS (Unmanned Systems) level of autonomy and autonomous performance, and these models are briefly discussed in this section.  Besides a plain autonomy level definition, several models have been proposed for assessing UMS (Unmanned Systems) level of autonomy and autonomous performance, and these models are briefly discussed in this section. 
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 The ALFUS framework provides the capability of estimating the level of autonomy of one robot or a team of robots. However, this methodology still has some drawbacks that prevent its direct implementation. The ALFUS methodology does not provide the tools to ((https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6942823/?casa_token=AOUV31jSjoMAAAAA:qxSTlUXcPOOb71b6gurGnJJBTUA4iC3ICA9OXSKcFXe-Oj0ti5uD9-d0QIMwE3aFG8rsEB0iC9livQ)): The ALFUS framework provides the capability of estimating the level of autonomy of one robot or a team of robots. However, this methodology still has some drawbacks that prevent its direct implementation. The ALFUS methodology does not provide the tools to ((https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6942823/?casa_token=AOUV31jSjoMAAAAA:qxSTlUXcPOOb71b6gurGnJJBTUA4iC3ICA9OXSKcFXe-Oj0ti5uD9-d0QIMwE3aFG8rsEB0iC9livQ)):
-  * Decompose the tasks in a commonly agreed-upon, standard way +  * Decompose the tasks in a commonly agreed-upon, standard way; 
-  * Test all possible missions, tasks, and sub-tasks +  * Test all possible missions, tasks, and sub-tasks; 
-  * Assess the interdependency between the metrics, as some of the subtasks can apply to more than one metric +  * Assess the interdependency between the metrics, as some of the subtasks can apply to more than one metric; 
-  * Allow metrics to be standardized in scoring scales; this will cause subjective evaluation and criteria to influence the results across different robots, users, or competing companies +  * Allow metrics to be standardized in scoring scales; this will cause subjective evaluation and criteria to influence the results across different robots, users, or competing companies; 
-  * Integrate the metrics into the final the autonomy level+  * Integrate the metrics into the final the autonomy level.
  
 Partially ALFUS drawbacks are tackled by another – non-contextual assessment formally called the Non-Contextual Autonomy Potential (NCAP) ((http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/RS/2011/A%20Non-Contextual%20Model%20for%20Evaluating%20the%20Autonomy%20Level%20of%20Intelligent%20Unmanned%20Ground%20Vehicles.pdf)). The NCAP provides a predictive measure of a UMS’s ability to perform autonomously rather than a retrospective assessment of UMS autonomous performance relaying on tests performed before the actual application of the system being assessed. The NCAP treats autonomy level and autonomous performance separately. A UMS that fails completely at its mission but does so autonomously still operates at the same autonomy level as another UMS that succeeds at the same mission. Model visualization is provided below: Partially ALFUS drawbacks are tackled by another – non-contextual assessment formally called the Non-Contextual Autonomy Potential (NCAP) ((http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/RS/2011/A%20Non-Contextual%20Model%20for%20Evaluating%20the%20Autonomy%20Level%20of%20Intelligent%20Unmanned%20Ground%20Vehicles.pdf)). The NCAP provides a predictive measure of a UMS’s ability to perform autonomously rather than a retrospective assessment of UMS autonomous performance relaying on tests performed before the actual application of the system being assessed. The NCAP treats autonomy level and autonomous performance separately. A UMS that fails completely at its mission but does so autonomously still operates at the same autonomy level as another UMS that succeeds at the same mission. Model visualization is provided below:
Line 29: Line 29:
 As it is said in ((https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6942823/?casa_token=AOUV31jSjoMAAAAA:qxSTlUXcPOOb71b6gurGnJJBTUA4iC3ICA9OXSKcFXe-Oj0ti5uD9-d0QIMwE3aFG8rsEB0iC9livQ)) the major drawback to these models is that they do not assess, specifically, the mission-specific fitness of a UMS. It might be a case when the user has several UMS assets available for a given mission or task, and the current models do not provide a simple answer for which asset is “best” Furthermore, none of the current model addresses, quantitatively, the impact on the mission-specific performance of changing a given UMS’s level of autonomy. With this need in mind, a metric for measuring autonomous performance is designed to predict the maximum possible mission performance of a UMS for a given mission and autonomy level and is named the Mission Performance Potential (MPP).  As it is said in ((https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6942823/?casa_token=AOUV31jSjoMAAAAA:qxSTlUXcPOOb71b6gurGnJJBTUA4iC3ICA9OXSKcFXe-Oj0ti5uD9-d0QIMwE3aFG8rsEB0iC9livQ)) the major drawback to these models is that they do not assess, specifically, the mission-specific fitness of a UMS. It might be a case when the user has several UMS assets available for a given mission or task, and the current models do not provide a simple answer for which asset is “best” Furthermore, none of the current model addresses, quantitatively, the impact on the mission-specific performance of changing a given UMS’s level of autonomy. With this need in mind, a metric for measuring autonomous performance is designed to predict the maximum possible mission performance of a UMS for a given mission and autonomy level and is named the Mission Performance Potential (MPP). 
 The major difference of the MPP model in comparison to the mentioned ones is defined by the following assumptions: The major difference of the MPP model in comparison to the mentioned ones is defined by the following assumptions:
-  * not necessarily performance increases gradually if autonomy level increases. It means that ins some particular tasks the performance actually can drop +  * not necessarily performance increases gradually if autonomy level increases. It means that ins some particular tasks the performance actually can drop; 
-  * performance of the same UMS can vary from mission to mission. It means that the context of the system operation cannot be ignored during the assessment+  * performance of the same UMS can vary from mission to mission. It means that the context of the system operation cannot be ignored during the assessment.
  
 International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE, https://www.sae.org/) have defined and explained autonomy levels of autonomous cars: International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE, https://www.sae.org/) have defined and explained autonomy levels of autonomous cars:
en/av/autonomy_and_autonomous_systems/autonomy/autonomy_levels.1623407528.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/06/11 09:00 (external edit)
CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
www.chimeric.de Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki do yourself a favour and use a real browser - get firefox!! Recent changes RSS feed Valid XHTML 1.0