Computational resource configuration analysis and optimization methods for unmanned system considering intended functionality safety

Abstract

With the rapid expansion of unmanned system capabilities, integrating and sharing computing resources has become essential. In addition to enhancing resource utilization efficiency, this architecture may also introduce conflicts related to resource competition. Therefore, effective resource-sharing configurations are crucial to ensure the Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF). This paper proposes a computing resource configuration analysis and optimization methods for SOTIF. First, four SOTIF requirements are explored using the computing resource-sharing architecture for unmanned systems, encompassing computing time, computing power, energy consumption restrictions, and mutual exclusion and correlation. Secondly, the computing resource configuration model and its SOTIF constraints are formalized based on the graph and set theories. Subsequently, this study divides the design process of computing resource configuration schemes into resource selection and allocation. It introduces a resource selection optimization method based on Forward Checking and a resource allocation optimization method based on NSGA-II. Finally, a typical unmanned driving scenario is considered as an example, and the optimal resource selection and allocation schemes are sequentially determined using the proposed method on the computing platform.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

safety analysis / unmanned system / safety of the intended functionality / computational resource allocation / optimization.

References

[1] AbdulazimAElbahaey MMohamedA (2021). Putting safety of intended functionality SOTIF into practice. SAE Technical Paper, 2021-01-0196

[2] Birch J, Blackburn D, Botham J, Habli I, Higham D, Monkhouse H, Price G, Ratiu N, Rivett R, (2020). A structured argument for assuring Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF). In: Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2020 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12235: 408–414

[3] BoardT (2019). Highway accident report: Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian. Available at trb.org/view/1751168

[4] Cai B, Zhao L, Wang Q, Yan M, Fang T, (2023). A strategy of vehicle following on slope road at night considering the safety of the intended functionality. Physica A, 624: 128951

[5] Chelouati M, Boussif A, Beugin J, El Koursi E M, (2023). Graphical safety assurance case using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) — challenges, opportunities and a framework for autonomous trains. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 230: 108933

[6] ChenZ WYin S YLiL FCuiW WHongD P (2024). Resilience metric and dynamic assessment of unmanned system-of-systems considering cooperative reconfiguration strategies. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, early access: 1–13

[7] ChenWZ RZhangYSDui H (2025. Importance-based risk evaluation methodology in transportation cyber-physical systems. Frontiers of Engineering Management,early access: 1–14

[8] Chu J Y, Zhao T D, Jiao J, Yuan Y, Jing Y F, (2023). SOTIF-oriented perception evaluation method for forward obstacle detection of autonomous vehicles. IEEE Systems Journal, 17( 2): 2319–2330

[9] Collin A, Bilka A, Pendleton S, Tebbens R D, (2020). Safety of the intended driving behavior using rulebooks. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2020: 136–143

[10] CollinA A C (2019). A systems architecture framework towards hardware selection for autonomous navigation. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[11] de Koning M, Machado T, Ahonen A, Strokina N, Dianatfar M, De Rosa F, Minav T, Ghabcheloo R, (2024). A comprehensive approach to safety for highly automated off-road machinery under Regulation 2023/1230. Safety Science, 175: 106517

[12] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T, (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6( 2): 182–197

[13] Esterle K, Aravantinos V, Knoll A, (2019). From specifications to behavior: maneuver verification in a semantic state space. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). 2140–2147

[14] Grabbe N, Kellnberger A, Aydin B, Bengler K, (2020). Safety of automated driving: The need for a systems approach and application of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method. Safety Science, 126: 104665

[15] Guo K, Ye Z S, Liu D T, Peng X Y, (2021). UAV flight control sensing enhancement with a data-driven adaptive fusion model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 213: 107654

[16] Hu J, Xu T, Yan X R, Zhang R C, (2022). Validation on Safety of the Intended Functionality of automated vehicles: concept development. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles, 6( 12-06-01-0006): 83–97

[17] Expósito Jiménez V J, Winkler B, Castella Triginer J M, Scharke H, Schneider H, Brenner E, Macher G, (2024). Safety of the Intended Functionality concept integration into a validation tool suite. ACM SIGAda Ada Letters, 43( 2): 69–72

[18] Kalra N, Paddock S M, (2016). Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability. Transportation Research Part A, Policy and Practice, 94: 182–193

[19] Khastgir S, Brewerton S, Thomas J, Jennings P, (2021). Systems approach to creating test scenarios for automated driving systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 215: 107610

[20] Kinalzyk D, (2021). SOTIF process and methods in combination with functional safety. In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 612–623

[21] Kondrak G, Van Beek P, (1997). A theoretical evaluation of selected backtracking algorithms. Artificial Intelligence, 89( 1–2): 365–387

[22] Luo Q, Zhang D, Zhou H, Pang S, Li X, Wang C, (2022). Evaluation on driving scenarios for safety of intended functionality of intelligent vehicles. China Safety Science Journal, 32: 140–145

[23] Mackworth A K, (1977). Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8( 1): 99–118

[24] Neurohr C, Westhofen L, Henning T, De Graaff T, Mohlmann E, Bode E, (2020). Fundamental considerations around scenario-based testing for automated driving. In: 2020 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). 121–127

[25] PimentelJ (2019). Safety of the Intended Functionality. SAE International. Warrendale, PA, USA

[26] Rau P, Becker C, Brewer J, (2019). Approach for deriving scenarios for Safety of the Intended Functionality. 1–15

[27] Schnellbach A, Griessnig G, (2019). Development of the ISO 21448. In:European Conference on Software Process Improvement. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 585–593

[28] Skoglund M, Warg F, Hansson H, Punnekkat S, (2021). Synchronisation of an automotive multi-concern development process. International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 63–75

[29] Srinivas M, Patnaik L M, (1994). Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24( 4): 656–667

[30] Wang B, Luo Y, Zhong Z, Li K, (2022). Robust non-fragile fault tolerant control for ensuring the Safety of the Intended Functionality of cooperative adaptive cruise control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23( 10): 18746–18760

[31] Yan M Y, Chen W W, Wang Q D, Zhao L F, Liang X T, Cai B X, (2021). Human–machine cooperative control of intelligent vehicles for lane keeping—Considering Safety of the Intended Functionality. In: Actuators. MDPI, 10( 9): 210

[32] Zhang X Y, Zhou M, Shao W B, Luo T, Li J, (2019). The architecture of the intended safety system for intelligent driving. In: 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). 1–4

[33] ZhangYLintern GGaoLZhangZ (2021). A study on functional safety, SOTIF and RSS from the perspective of human-automation interaction. SAE Technical Paper, 2021–01–0858

[34] Zhao X, Lv Z H, Qiu Q A, Wu Y G, (2023). Designing two-level rescue depot location and dynamic rescue policies for unmanned vehicles. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 233: 109119

[35] ZhouBChen CZhaiYZhaoS (2022a). A study on scenario generalization and optimization for ADS. SAE Technical Paper, 2022-01-7007

[36] Zhou H, Li X Y, He X, Li P F, Xiao L Y, Zhang D W, (2022b). Research on safety of the intended functionality of automobile AEB perception system in typical dangerous scenarios of two-wheelers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 173: 106709

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 Higher Education Press