This paper presents a comprehensive hazard analysis, risk assessment, and loss evaluation for an Evasive Minimum Risk Maneuvering (EMRM) system designed for autonomous vehicles. The EMRM system is engineered to enhance collision avoidance and mitigate loss severity by drawing inspiration from professional drivers who perform aggressive maneuvers while maintaining stability for effective risk mitigation. Recent advancements in autonomous vehicle technology demonstrate a growing capability for high-performance maneuvers. This paper discusses a comprehensive safety verification process and establishes a clear safety goal to enhance testing validation. The study systematically identifies potential hazards and assesses their risks to overall safety and the protection of vulnerable road users. A novel loss evaluation approach is introduced, focusing on the impact of mitigation maneuvers on loss severity. Additionally, the proposed mitigation integrity level can be used to verify the minimum-risk maneuver feature. This paper applies a verification method to evasive maneuvering, contributing to the development of more reliable active safety features in autonomous driving systems.

Changes and updates in the requirement artifacts, which can be frequent in the automotive domain, are a challenge for SafetyOps. Large Language Models (LLMs), with their impressive natural language understanding and generating capabilities, can play a key role in automatically refining and decomposing requirements after each update. In this study, we propose a prototype of a pipeline of prompts and LLMs that receives an item definition and outputs solutions in the form of safety requirements. This pipeline also performs a review of the requirement dataset and identifies redundant or contradictory requirements. We first identified the necessary characteristics for performing HARA and then defined tests to assess an LLM's capability in meeting these criteria. We used design science with multiple iterations and let experts from different companies evaluate each cycle quantitatively and qualitatively. Finally, the prototype was implemented at a case company and the responsible team evaluated its efficiency.

This paper proposes a framework based on a causal model of safety upon which effective safety assurance cases for ML-based applications can be developed. In doing so, we build upon established principles of safety engineering as well as previous work on structuring assurance arguments for ML. The paper defines four categories of safety case evidence and a structured analysis approach within which these evidences can be effectively combined. Where appropriate, abstract formalisations of these contributions are used to illustrate the causalities they evaluate, their contributions to the safety argument and desirable properties of the evidences. Based on the proposed framework, progress in this area is re-evaluated and a set of future research directions proposed in order for tangible progress in this field to be made.

Uber's self-driving cars were 400 times worse than Waymo before the fatal Arizona crash, according to a leaked internal report. The firm's cars were unable to reach 13 miles (21km) without human intervention, while cars made by the Google subsidiary Waymo could drive 5,600 miles (9,000km). According to a 100-page company document, Uber was also struggling to meet various other safety goals in the weeks before the crash. For instance, the cars were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles. The CEO of Google's Waymo has since said that the recent death of a pedestrian in an accident involving an autonomous Uber car would not have occurred with his company's technology.