بنقرة واحدة
automotive-dfm-benchmarking
Automotive Dfm Benchmarking expertise. Covers 1 topics: Dfm Benchmarking.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Automotive Dfm Benchmarking expertise. Covers 1 topics: Dfm Benchmarking.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
39 agent definitions for specialized automotive roles: safety engineer, ADAS architect, AUTOSAR expert, BMS engineer, cybersecurity analyst, SOTIF specialist, and more.
192 automation scripts for 33 command categories: testing, diagnostics, ADAS, AUTOSAR, safety, etc.
Architecture guides, getting started, project documentation. 70 reference documents covering archive, getting-started.
Production-ready automotive code examples from automotive-claude-code-agents. Includes BMS ECU firmware (C), ADAS perception pipeline (Python), battery thermal modeling, network topologies, multi-region cloud deployment (Terraform/K8s), and automotive protocol demos. Use when the user wants real working code for automotive ECUs, ADAS, BMS, or deployment.
Helm charts for automotive cloud services. 3 configuration files.
Pre-commit, pre-push, post-commit, and post-deploy Git hooks for automotive ASPICE compliance. 24 hook scripts across 5 lifecycle stages.
| name | automotive-dfm-benchmarking |
| description | Automotive Dfm Benchmarking expertise. Covers 1 topics: Dfm Benchmarking. |
| tags | ["automotive","automotive-dfm-benchmarking"] |
Benchmarking framework based on the Driver Foundation Model (DFM) concept for evaluating autonomous driving systems. DFM uses large-scale naturalistic driving data (NDD) to model human driver behavior distributions, providing a human-performance baseline for AD system evaluation. This skill supports scenario generation, performance benchmarking, and safety argument construction using NDD-derived metrics.
驾驶员基础模型 (Driver Foundation Model) 概念
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Core Idea:
Human drivers provide a safety baseline:
- Average driver: ~1 fatality per 10^8 km (developed countries)
- Good driver: ~10x safer than average
- AD must be at least as safe as good human driver
DFM Approach:
1. Collect large-scale NDD (7.5M+ aerial trajectories)
2. Model human driving behavior distributions
3. Extract scenario-specific performance baselines
4. Benchmark AD systems against human baselines
5. Quantify relative safety improvement
DFM as Foundation Model:
├── Pre-trained on massive NDD
├── Captures diverse driving styles and conditions
├── Fine-tunable for specific scenarios/regions
├── Provides probabilistic behavior predictions
└── Serves as benchmark generator and evaluator
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
# NDD Processing Pipeline for DFM
class NDDProcessor:
"""
Process Naturalistic Driving Data for DFM benchmarking.
Supports aerial trajectory data (drone-based) and fleet data.
"""
def __init__(self, data_source: str):
"""
data_source options:
- "aerial": Drone-based trajectory extraction (7.5M+ trajectories)
- "fleet": Vehicle-mounted sensor data
- "hybrid": Combined aerial + fleet data
"""
self.source = data_source
def extract_driving_primitives(self, trajectories):
"""
Extract fundamental driving behaviors from trajectory data.
Driving primitives:
- Car-following (跟车)
- Lane-changing (换道)
- Merging (汇入)
- Diverging (分流)
- Crossing (交叉)
- Free-driving (自由行驶)
"""
primitives = {
"car_following": self.extract_car_following(trajectories),
"lane_change": self.extract_lane_changes(trajectories),
"merge": self.extract_merges(trajectories),
"diverge": self.extract_diverges(trajectories),
"crossing": self.extract_crossings(trajectories),
"free_driving": self.extract_free_driving(trajectories),
}
return primitives
def build_behavior_distributions(self, primitives):
"""
Build statistical distributions of driving behaviors.
For car-following:
- Time headway distribution: P(THW)
- TTC distribution: P(TTC)
- Speed distribution: P(v | context)
- Acceleration distribution: P(a | context)
- Lane offset distribution: P(offset | context)
"""
distributions = {}
for primitive_type, data in primitives.items():
distributions[primitive_type] = {
"thw": fit_distribution(data.thw_values),
"ttc": fit_distribution(data.ttc_values),
"speed": conditional_distribution(data.speeds, data.contexts),
"acceleration": conditional_distribution(data.accels, data.contexts),
"lateral_offset": fit_distribution(data.offsets),
"jerk": fit_distribution(data.jerks),
}
return distributions
def generate_benchmark_scenarios(self, distributions, n_scenarios=1000):
"""
Generate benchmark scenarios by sampling from behavior distributions.
Importance sampling: over-sample from tail (critical) regions
"""
scenarios = []
for i in range(n_scenarios):
# Sample scenario type based on exposure
scenario_type = sample_weighted(distributions.keys(),
weights=exposure_weights)
# Sample parameters from distribution
params = sample_from_distribution(
distributions[scenario_type],
sampling="importance", # over-sample tails
criticality_weight=2.0
)
scenarios.append(BenchmarkScenario(
type=scenario_type,
parameters=params,
human_baseline=distributions[scenario_type],
))
return scenarios
DFM基准评测指标体系
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Safety Metrics (安全性指标):
├── Collision rate vs. human baseline
├── Near-miss rate (TTC < 1.5s events)
├── Safety-critical event rate
├── Minimum TTC distribution comparison
└── Emergency braking frequency
Comfort Metrics (舒适性指标):
├── Acceleration distribution vs. human
├── Jerk distribution vs. human
├── Lateral offset smoothness
├── Speed profile consistency
└── Ride quality index
Efficiency Metrics (效率指标):
├── Travel time vs. human baseline
├── Throughput at bottlenecks
├── Speed utilization (actual/limit ratio)
└── Lane utilization efficiency
Human-Likeness Metrics (类人性指标):
├── Trajectory similarity (Fréchet distance)
├── Decision timing similarity
├── Speed profile similarity (DTW distance)
├── Gap acceptance distribution similarity
└── Lane change timing similarity
Overall DFM Score:
DFM_score = w_s × Safety + w_c × Comfort + w_e × Efficiency + w_h × HumanLikeness
where: w_s > w_c > w_e > w_h (safety weighted highest)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
# DFM Benchmarking Protocol
class DFMBenchmark:
"""
Benchmark AD system against human driver baseline using DFM.
"""
def __init__(self, dfm_model, ad_system):
self.dfm = dfm_model # Trained DFM with human baselines
self.ad = ad_system # AD system under test
def run_benchmark(self, scenario_suite):
"""
Run complete benchmark suite.
Returns:
- Per-scenario comparison (AD vs. human)
- Aggregate safety/comfort/efficiency scores
- Failure mode analysis
- Improvement recommendations
"""
results = []
for scenario in scenario_suite:
# Get human baseline for this scenario
human_baseline = self.dfm.predict_behavior(scenario)
# Run AD system in same scenario
ad_behavior = self.ad.simulate(scenario)
# Compare
comparison = self.compare_behaviors(
human=human_baseline,
ad=ad_behavior,
scenario=scenario
)
results.append(comparison)
return self.aggregate_results(results)
def compare_behaviors(self, human, ad, scenario):
"""Compare AD behavior with human baseline"""
return {
"scenario_id": scenario.id,
"safety": {
"ad_min_ttc": ad.min_ttc,
"human_min_ttc_percentile": human.ttc_percentile(ad.min_ttc),
"collision": ad.collision_occurred,
"safety_score": self.compute_safety_score(ad, human),
},
"comfort": {
"ad_max_accel": ad.max_acceleration,
"human_accel_percentile": human.accel_percentile(ad.max_acceleration),
"ad_max_jerk": ad.max_jerk,
"comfort_score": self.compute_comfort_score(ad, human),
},
"human_likeness": {
"trajectory_distance": frechet_distance(ad.trajectory, human.mean_trajectory),
"speed_profile_dtw": dtw_distance(ad.speed_profile, human.mean_speed),
"decision_timing_diff": abs(ad.decision_time - human.mean_decision_time),
},
}
def generate_report(self, results):
"""Generate benchmark report with visualizations"""
report = {
"overall_dfm_score": self.compute_overall_score(results),
"safety_rating": self.rate_safety(results),
"scenarios_worse_than_human": self.find_deficiencies(results),
"scenarios_better_than_human": self.find_strengths(results),
"improvement_priorities": self.prioritize_improvements(results),
}
return report
版本对比评测
├── Input: AD System v1.0, v2.0
├── Benchmark: Same DFM scenario suite
├── Output:
│ ├── Per-scenario performance delta
│ ├── Regression identification (v2 worse than v1)
│ ├── Improvement quantification
│ └── Overall DFM score trend
└── Use case: Release gate decision
跨平台评测
├── Input: Multiple AD systems (OEM A vs. B vs. C)
├── Benchmark: Standardized DFM scenario suite
├── Output:
│ ├── Comparative safety ranking
│ ├── Comfort comparison
│ ├── Scenario-specific strengths/weaknesses
│ └── Industry positioning
└── Use case: C-NCAP, IIHS, consumer testing
SOTIF证据生成
├── Input: AD system + DFM human baselines
├── Analysis: Per-scenario risk comparison
├── Output:
│ ├── Scenarios where AD safer than human → evidence
│ ├── Scenarios where AD less safe → risk
│ ├── Statistical safety argument
│ └── Residual risk quantification
└── Use case: ISO 21448 compliance, type approval
automotive-scenario-driven-testing — Scenario-based V&V methodologyautomotive-sotif-hazard-scenario — SOTIF scenario constructionautomotive-e2e-safety-analysis — E2E AD safety analysisautomotive-china-l3-ads-compliance — L3 validation requirements