The missing link: Developing a safety case for perception components in automated driving
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety assurance is a central concern for the development and societal acceptance of automated driving (AD) systems. Perception is a key aspect of AD that relies heavily on Machine Learning (ML). Despite the known challenges with the safety assurance of ML-based components, proposals have recently emerged for unit-level safety cases addressing these components. Unfortunately, AD safety cases express safety requirements at the system level and these efforts are missing the critical linking argument needed to integrate safety requirements at the system level with component performance requirements at the unit level. In this paper, we propose the Integration Safety Case for Perception (ISCaP), a generic template for such a linking safety argument specifically tailored for perception components. The template takes a deductive and formal approach to define strong traceability between levels. We demonstrate the applicability of ISCaP with a detailed case study and discuss its use as a tool to support incremental development of perception components.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2021.
Builds on
5 of 24 references.
References · 5
- 2018PointPillars: Fast Encoders for Object Detection from Point Cloudscited by 1,707
- 2019Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challengescited by 39
- 2020Waymo's Safety Methodologies and Safety Readiness Determinationscited by 16
- 2021Safety Case Templates for Autonomous Systemscited by 3
- 2020Self-driving car safety quantification via component-level analysiscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2022Unaligned but Safe -- Formally Compensating Performance Limitations for Imprecise 2D Object Detectioncited by 3
- 2021Logically Sound Arguments for the Effectiveness of ML Safety Measurescited by 2
- 2023STEAM & MoSAFE: SOTIF Error-and-Failure Model & Analysis for AI-Enabled Driving Automationcited by 1
- 2022A Safety Assurable Human-Inspired Perception Architecturecited by 0
- 2025Explaining Unreliable Perception in Automated Driving: A Fuzzy-based Monitoring Approachcited by 0
- 2026Detecting Trojaned DNNs via Spectral Regression Analysiscited by 0
- 2026Auditing Quality Filters for Long-Tail Human Data Curationcited by 0
- 2026Auditing Quality Filters for Long-Tail Human Data Curation25 Sep 2026
- 2026Detecting Trojaned DNNs via Spectral Regression Analysis20 May 2026
- 2025Explaining Unreliable Perception in Automated Driving: A Fuzzy-based Monitoring Approach20 May 2025
- 2023STEAM & MoSAFE: SOTIF Error-and-Failure Model & Analysis for AI-Enabled Driving Automation15 Dec 2023
- 2022A Safety Assurable Human-Inspired Perception Architecture10 May 2022
- 2022Unaligned but Safe -- Formally Compensating Performance Limitations for Imprecise 2D Object Detection10 Feb 2022
- 2021Logically Sound Arguments for the Effectiveness of ML Safety Measures4 Nov 2021