mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Comparing Normalizing Flows with Kernel Density Estimation in Estimating Risk of Automated Driving Systems

arXiv 2507.22429 ↗First posted 30 Jul 2025cs.RO cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The development of safety validation methods is essential for the safe deployment and operation of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs). One of the goals of safety validation is to prospectively evaluate the risk of an ADS dealing with real-world traffic. Scenario-based assessment is a widely-used approach, where test cases are derived from real-world driving data. To allow for a quantitative analysis of the system performance, the exposure of the scenarios must be accurately estimated. The exposure of scenarios at parameter level is expressed using a Probability Density Function (PDF). However, assumptions about the PDF, such as parameter independence, can introduce errors, while avoiding assumptions often leads to oversimplified models with limited parameters to mitigate the curse of dimensionality. This paper considers the use of Normalizing Flows (NF) for estimating the PDF of the parameters. NF are a class of generative models that transform a simple base distribution into a complex one using a sequence of invertible and differentiable mappings, enabling flexible, high-dimensional density estimation without restrictive assumptions on the PDF's shape. We demonstrate the effectiveness of NF in quantifying risk and risk uncertainty of an ADS, comparing its performance with Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), a traditional method for non-parametric PDF estimation. While NF require more computational resources compared to KDE, NF is less sensitive to the curse of dimensionality. As a result, NF can improve risk uncertainty estimation, offering a more precise assessment of an ADS's safety. This work illustrates the potential of NF in scenario-based safety. Future work involves experimenting more with using NF for scenario generation and optimizing the NF architecture, transformation types, and training hyperparameters to further enhance their applicability.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2025.

Builds on

16 of 36 references.

References · 16

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2015Variational Inference with Normalizing Flowscited by 2,170
  3. 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,965
  4. 2019Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inferencecited by 1,323
  5. 2014NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimationcited by 1,058
  6. 2017Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimationcited by 684
  7. 2016Tutorial on Variational Autoencoderscited by 409
  8. 2018How Does Batch Normalization Help Optimization?cited by 357
  9. 2018The highD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic Vehicle Trajectories on German Highways for Validation of Highly Automated Driving Systemscited by 277
  10. 2022A Survey on Safety-Critical Driving Scenario Generation -- A Methodological Perspectivecited by 105
  11. 2024Flexible Tails for Normalizing Flowscited by 12
  12. 20231001 Ways of Scenario Generation for Testing of Self-driving Cars: A Surveycited by 8
4 more
  1. 2020Real-World Scenario Mining for the Assessment of Automated Vehiclescited by 5
  2. 2024Diffusion Density Estimatorscited by 2
  3. 2016Exploratory data analysis for moderate extreme values using non-parametric kernel methodscited by 1
  4. 2024Scenario-based assessment of automated driving systems: How (not) to parameterize scenarios?cited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.