Evaluation of A Semi-Autonomous Lane Departure Correction System
Using Naturalistic Driving Data

arXiv:1702.06557v1 [] 21 Feb 2017

Ding Zhao1 , Wenshuo Wang2 , David J. LeBlanc1
Abstract— Evaluating the effectiveness and benefits of driver
assistance systems is essential for improving the system performance. In this paper, we propose an efficient evaluation method
for a semi-autonomous lane departure correction system. To
achieve this, we apply a bounded Gaussian mixture model to
describe drivers’ stochastic lane departure behavior learned
from naturalistic driving data, which can regenerate departure
behaviors to evaluate the lane departure correction system. In
the stochastic lane departure model, we conduct a dimension
reduction to reduce the computation cost. Finally, to show the
advantages of our proposed evaluation approach, we compare
steering systems with and without lane departure assistance
based on the stochastic lane departure model. The simulation
results show that the proposed method can effectively evaluate
the lane departure correction system.
Index Terms— Performance evaluation, lane departure correction system, stochastic driver model, bounded Gaussian
mixture model

I. I NTRODUCTION
In the United States, single-vehicle road departures accounted for approximately 37.4 % of all fatal vehicle crashes.
Many studies have been conducted on the lane departure
warning (LDW) system, lane departure assistance (LDA)
system, and lane centering assistant (LCA) system. These
systems have the potential to address a large proportion
of serious injury and fatal crashes and have been studied
by many authors. For example, Minoiu Enache [1] et al.,
designed a steering assistant controller for lane departure
behaviors. Reagan and McCartt [2] investigated on the frequency in which the LDW system was activated. A limited
number of studies, however, have been conducted on how
to evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of these systems
in the real world. Several naturalistic field operational tests
have been conducted in the U.S. However, the cost of these
types of evaluation is so high that they are useful only for
evaluating the final product, not at the point of development.
Mathematical models capable of reproducing drivers’ lane
departure behaviors can be applied to testing and evaluating
the effectiveness and benefits of these systems, thus cutting
costs and shortening the development cycle. Such models
may also allow deeper insight into the physiological and
cognitive behaviors of human drivers so that present or future
driver-automation interfaces can be optimized.
*This work was supported by Toyota Class Action Settlement Safety
Research and Education Program
1 D. Zhao (corresponding author: zhaoding@umich.edu) and D.
J. LeBlanc are with the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
2 W. Wang is with the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute
of Technology, Beijing, China 100081 and the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720 USA.

Fig. 1: Evaluation procedure based on a stochastic lane
departure model using naturalistic driving data.

Recently, simulation-based evaluation methods have become popular [3]–[8] in evaluating the safety of automated vehicles and the performance of advanced driver
assistance systems. In this paper, we propose a simulationbased method to evaluate the lane departure correction
(LDC) system. The evaluation procedure is shown in Fig.
1. First, a stochastic lane departure model is built based
on a bound Gaussian mixture (BGM) model using a very
large quantity of naturalistic driving data. In the trained
model, we use a dimension reduction method and apply
8 variables representing the lane departure behavior. Thus,
based on the stochastic lane departure model, we can extract
and regenerate the lane departure event as similar to what
it might be in the real word. The lane departure events
generated from the stochastic model can be used to test
and evaluate the LDC system. When the vehicle generated
from the stochastic model drifts cross the lane marker, the
LDC system will automatic control the power steering, thus
bringing the vehicle back into the lane. In this way, we can
estimate different LDC systems.
II. M ODELING L ANE D EPARTURE B EHAVIORS
A. Naturalistic Lane Departure Events
The naturalistic driving data used in this research are
extracted from the Safety Pilot Model Deployment (SPMD)
database [9], which recorded the naturalistic driving of 2,842
equipped vehicles in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for over two
years. As of April 2016, 34.9 million miles were logged,
making the SPMD one of the largest public N-FOT databases
ever. We used 98 sedans to run experiments and collect
real on-road data. The vehicles were equipped with Data
Acquisition System and Mobileyer [6]. The Mobileyer
obtains the driving data such as relative range, relative speed,

Fig. 2: Procedure to build the lane departure model

(a) Lateral departure distance

Fig. 3: Illustration of lane departure model

and lane tracking measures about lane delineation both from
the painted boundary lines and the road edge, etc. The GPS
obtains the global position (latitude and longitude) and the
GPS time. The vehicle speed, acceleration, throttle opening,
braking force, engine speed were obtained via the CAN bus.
The error of range measurement to the front object was
around 10 % at 90 m and 5 % at 45 m [10].
To ensure consistency of the dataset, we applied the
following criteria: (1) the duration of each event should be
in the range of 0.5 s to 10 s and (2) the average velocity
of each event should be larger than 5 m/s. In total, 529,096
lane departure events were identified from 118 drivers over
the previous four years.

(b) Velocity

(c) Road curvature

B. Lane Departure Model
The model procedure is shown in Fig. 2. Three key
variables are used to describe a lane departure event: (1) lane
departure y, (2) vehicle speed v, and (3) lane curvature cl
as shown in 3. Examples extracted from the SPMD database
are shown in Fig. 4.
Our goal is to build a model that can generate lane departure events statistically equivalent to the events collected
from naturalistic driving data. If the departure duration T
is 5 s with sampling time Ts being 0.1 s, we will get
3(T /Ts + 1) = 153 data points to fully describe the three
variables y y, v, and cl . This dimension is normally too
high to build a stochastic model. Therefore, the first task
is to reduce the model dimension by extracting the key
features of the variables while reserving model uncertainty.
As illustrated in Fig. 4(a), y can be approximated through a
second order polynomial function of the longitudinal travel
distance x plus the error term.

Fig. 4: Lateral offset examples during lane departure

y(t) = ỹ(t) + y (t)
4dy 
d x 2
ỹ(t) = − 2 x(t) −
+ dy
dx
2

(1)
(2)

where dx is the longitudinal travel distance during the departure. dy represents the lateral departure calculated from the
Least Square method. Variance in human driving is captured
by the standard deviation of y (l), which can be calculated
from
v
u
L
u 1 X
|y (l) − ¯y |2
(3)
σy = t
L−1
l=1

where L is the number of samples in one event, y (l) =
y(l) − ỹ(l) represents the error at the time of the lth sample

(a)

(b)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(g)

(h)

Fig. 5: Marginal distributions of left lane departure variables

of the lane departure event. Without introducing confusion, in
the this paper we use t to represent continuous time starting
from 0 to T and use l as the index P
of the discrete sample
L
time, starting from 1 to L, and ¯y = l=1 y (l).
Velocity is approximated using a linear function of time.
v(t) = ṽ(t) + v (t) = ā(t − T /2) + v̄ + v (t)

(4)

where v̄ = dx /T is the average speed. The average acceleration ā is calculated from the least square method. Similarly,
human uncertainties on velocity can be calculated from
v
u
L
u 1 X
|v (l) − ¯v |2
(5)
σv = t
L−1
l=0

Lane curvature is also modeled as a linear function of
time:
∆c
t + c0 + c
(6)
c(t) = c̃(t) + c =
T
where c0 is the initial curvature and ∆c is the change in
the curvature. To smooth the curvature data, we use linear

Fig. 6: Marginal distributions of right lane departure variables
PL
regression to estimate c0 and ∆c such that
l=1 |c(l) −
c̃(l)|2 is minimized. The benefits of this model are that it
reduces the dimensions of the original data while capturing
the stochastic variance in human driving with parameters that
have physical meanings.
III. S TATISTICAL M ODEL F ITTING
In this section, we develop a statistical model
to describe the joint distribution of the seven
parameters
identified
in
previous
section.
Let
(n)
(n)
(n) (n)
ξ (n)
=
[T (n) , dy , σy , v̄ (n) , ā(n) , σv , c0 , ∆c(n) ]
where n = 1, 2, ..., N is the index of departure events. The
marginal distribution of ξ for left lane departure events
and right lane departure events are shown Fig. 5 and Fig.
6, respectively. We can see that each variable follows a
different distribution. From the joint distribution shown in
Fig. 7, a clear dependence between variables can be seen. A
flexible probability density function (p.d.f.) that can model
the multi-variate distribution is needed.

(a) Left departure

Fig. 7: Joint distributions of duration and maximum departure
distance

In light of its flexibility and ease of training, the Gaussian
Mixture Model (GMM) has been widely used in applications
such as speech recognition [11], pattern recognition [12], and
driving behaviors [4]. In this research, we use the BGM
model to take the physical boundaries into account. The
BGM model is valuable because it considers the variable
boundaries while preserving a tractable form when using the
EM algorithm to train the model.
The probability density function of a BGM model can be
expressed as
fBM (ξ) = R bu

fGM (ξ)

bl

(b) Right departure

Fig. 8: BIC with different numbers of BGM components.
The log-likelihood function of fBM can be expressed as
YX
LB (Θ) = ln
zkn ηk fk (ξ n )
(12)
n

(7)

fGM (u)du

=

n

where fGM (ξ) is a normal GMM, i.e.
fGM (ξ|Θ) =

K
X

πk gk (ξ; θk )

(8)

P
where πk ∈ [0, 1] are mixing weights with
k πk = 1,
gk is the k th d-dimensional Gaussian distribution component
parameterized by θk = [µk , σk ]. Here we assume that the
boundary is a hyper-rectangle in Rd with two vertices bu =
[bu1 , ..., bud ]T and bl = [bl1 , ..., bld ]T on the diagonal opposites
such that bl < ξ (n) < bu , Θ = [π1 , ..., πK , θ1 , ..., θK ].
It can be derived that fBM is also a mixture
K
X

ηk fk (ξ)

(9)

k=1

with mixing weights ηk and component density functions fk :
R bu
gk (u)du
ηk = πk R bbul
(10)
fGM (u)du
bl
fk (ξ) = R bu
bl

gk (ξ)
fGM (u)du

zkn [ln ηk + ln fk (ξ n ) − ln

Z

bu

fk (u)du]
bl

k

(13)

k=1

fBM =

k

XX

(11)

The expectation of LB (Θ) can be calculated from
QB (Θ(i+1) ; Θ(i) ) = E[LB (Θ)|ξ 1:N ; Θ(i) ]
(14)
Z bu
XX
=
hzkn i[ln ηk + ln fk (ξ n ) − ln
fk (u)du]
n

bl

k

(15)
where the latent variable
hzkn i := P(zkn = 1|ξ n )
As shown in [13], the EM iteration can be calculated
1 X n
ηk =
hz i
N n k
P n n
n hzk iξ
µk = P
− mk
hz n i
P n nk n
hzk i(ξ − µk )
Σk = n P
+ Hk
n
n hzk i

(16)
from
(17)
(18)
(19)

where
mk = M1 (0, Σk ; [bl − µk , bu − µk ])

(20)

Hk = Σk − M2 (0, Σk ; [bl − µk , bu − µk ])

(21)

Fig. 9: Bicycle model and the related variables in a curve
path.

with M1 and M2 represent the first order and second order
moment generated function of fBM .
The component number of the BGM model is chosen
based on a numerical analysis of the Bayesian Information
Criterion (BIC) [14] . As shown in Fig. 8, the BIC decreases
very slowly and begins to oscillate when the number of
components is greater than 10 for both left and right lane
departure cases. Therefore we chose K = 10.



0
1
0
0



2Cαf +2Cαr
2Cαf lf +2Cαr lr 
αr

0 − 2CαfM+2C
−
vx
M
M vx

A=



0
0
0
1


2
2
2C
l
+2C
l
2C l −2C l 2C l −2C l
αr r
αf f
0 − αf Ifz vx αr r αf fIz αr r −
Iz vx




0
0




 2Cαf lf −2Cαr lr
 2Cαf 

−
 m 

−
v
x
mvx




E=
B=
,


 0 

0




2
2
2Cαf lf +2Cαr lr
2Cαf lf
−
Iz
Iz vx
where x(t) = [ey , ėy , eψ , ėψ ]T ∈ R4×1 , A ∈ R4×4 , B ∈
R4×1 , E ∈ R4×1 , Cαf and Cαr are tire stiffness, lf and
lr are the longitudinal distance from the center of gravity to
the front axle and rear axle, m is the total mass, Iz is the
inertia of z axis, and δ is the average of the steering angles
of the front two wheels.
B. Controller Design
Define the preview orientation error (Fig. 9)
lp
elp
ψ = ψ − ψl

(24)

∆ψl = ψl − ψllp

(25)

Let

IV. E VALUATION OF A S EMI -AUTONOMOUS L ANE
D EPARTURE C ORRECTION S YSTEM

Substituting (25) to (24), we have
elp
ψ = ψ − (ψl − ∆ψl ) = eψ + ∆ψl

(26)

Consider the control law
An LDC system is designed to demonstrate the evaluation
approach. First, we describe the vehicle dynamics during
the lane departure. Then we introduce an LDC system by
controlling the steering wheel.

δ = Ky ey + Kψ elp
ψ

(27)

Letting F = [Ky , 0, Kψ , 0] and G = Kψ , we have
δ = Ky ey + Kψ eψ + Kψ ∆ψl

(28)

= F x + G∆ψl
A. The Vehicle Dynamics
When vehicle speed varies slightly and the slip values are
small, as at the beginning of lane departure drifting events, a
linear vehicle model can be employed. As shown in Fig. 9,
a simplified vehicle model is used, where two front wheels
and two rear wheels are lumped together, respectively. ψ is
the heading angle and ψl is the tangent direction of the lane.
We define the heading error eψ and offset error ey as
eψ = ψ − ψl
wv
wl
ey = y −
+
2
2

The semi-autonomous system kicks in when a certain threshold is reached. In this paper we will evaluate a design with
a trigger y > ys , where ys is the predefined threshold.
Based on the above discussion, we rewrite (23) as follows
ẋ(t) = Ac x(t) + Bc l(t),

where Ac = A + BF , Bc = [E, BG], l(t) =
[ψ̇l (t), ∆ψl (t)]T . Substituting (28) into (29), we get the
closed loop form
vx (ts )∆c
t + vx (ts )c0
T

(30)

ψ̇l (t)dt = A∆ψl t + B∆ψl

(31)

ψ̇l (t) = vx (ts )c(t) =
Z

(22)

t+Tlp

∆ψl (t) =
t

∆c·T ·v (t )

where wv and wl are vehicle width and lane width, respectively. The vehicle dynamic can be expressed in a state space
form
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bδ(t) + E ψ̇l (t),

(29)

(23)

∆c·T 2 ·vx (ts )

lp x s
lp
where A∆ψl =
and B∆ψl =
+
T
2T
vx (ts )·c0 ·Tlp . The initial condition of the close loop control
v (t)
is ey (ts ) = y(ts )+(wl −wv )/2 and eψ (ts ) = arctan( vxy (t) ),

de (t)

y
where vy (ts ) = dt
|t=ts , ts is the time of start point of
lane departure. Table I provides the parameters used in the
simulation.

Lateral diplacement [m]

Control
No Control

4
2
0
-2
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Time [s]

Fig. 10: Illustrations of comparison between trajectories with
and without the controller.
TABLE I: Simulation Parameters
Var
Cαf
Cαr
lf
Tl p
Ts
Ky
Kψ

Unit
N/rad
N/rad
m
s
s
rad/m
rad/rad

Value
80000
80000
1.43
2
0.05
-0.005
-0.2

Var
lr
Iz
M
Dy
wl
wv
ys

Unit
m
kgm2
kg
m
m
m
m

Value
1.47
3344
1000
0.5
3.6
1.9
0.2

Lateral diplacement [m]

(a) Right departure cases
Control
No Control

4
2
0
-2
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time [s]

(b) Left departure cases

Fig. 11: Examples of the comparison results of the lane
departure events with and without controller.

5

C. Simulation Results

ced
3
by

2
by

4.2

6.4

4%

7%

3

du

3.5

ced

Mean and standard deviation of areas

Re

4

du

Z

Without control
With control

4.5
Re

Fig. 10 illustrates the lane departure event (green solid
line) generated from the stochastic model and the control
results (green dash line). The red point represents the trigger
point where the control condition is valid.
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 11. The solid
black line is the lane boundary; the dashed black line is the
center of the driving lane. The blue line is the lane departure
trajectory generated from the stochastic model; the red line
is the trajectory of the vehicle with the designed controller.
In Fig. 11, we draw the trajectory only after the controller is
triggered, i.e., the trajectory after the red point in Fig. 10. It is
shown that the learning-based stochastic model regenerated
the lane departure events that can be used in the controller
evaluation.
To clearly show the evaluation performance of our proposed approach, the area between the vehicle trajectory and
road centerline for each departure event is computed by

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

tend

|ey (t)|dt

S=

(32)

tstart

where tstart and tend are the start and end time point of
controller, respectively. Thus, a smaller value of S indicates
that the vehicle is tracking the lane center better.
Fig. 12 provides the statistical simulation results for 200
left lane departure events and 200 right lane departure events
that were stochastically generated from the trained model.
The bar represents the mean value and the red vertical line
represents the standard deviation of S. We note that our
proposed method can generate a wide range of different kinds
of lane departure events and that the controller can pull the

0

Left departure

Right departure

Fig. 12: The mean and standard deviations of departure
covering areas for 200 left and right departure events, respectively.

vehicle back to the lane center when drivers depart from the
lane center. The vehicle with an LDC system can reduce the
departure area S by 26.47% and 34.24% for left and right
departure events, respectively. Fig. 13 shows the statistical

4

3.5

3.5

Mean of area (S)

Mean of area (S)

4

3
2.5
2

RLD & control
LLD & control
RLD & no control
LLD & no control

1.5
1

0

50

100

150

Number of generated event (N )

3
2.5
2
RLD & control
LLD & control
RLD & no control
LLD & no control

1.5
200

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Distribution

Fig. 13: The statistical results for different number of lane departure event generated from the trained model.

results of generated lane departure events, consisting of right
lane departures (RLDs) and left lane departures (LLDs), thus
supporting the benefit of our proposed approach to evaluating
semi-autonomous LDC systems using naturalistic driving
data.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating
a semi-autonomous LDC system using a learning-based
method. The proposed model can regenerate LDB to evaluate
the controller for the semi-autonomous LDC system. In the
stochastic model, we apply naturalistic driving data to learn
the model parameters based on a bounded Gaussian mixture
model. To reduce computation costs, we propose a dimension reduction method by using a polynomial function with
stochastic terms to characterize the LDB. Finally, a controller
is designed to validate the semi-autonomous LDC system.
The simulation results indicate that the proposed stochastic
model is effective in evaluating the semi-autonomous LDC
system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was funded in part by the Toyota Class Action
Settlement Safety Research and Education Program. The
conclusions being expressed are the authors only, and have
not been sponsored, approved, or endorsed by Toyota or
plaintiffs class counsel. The authors also wish to thank
Scott Bogard for his help with data processing and Carol
Flannagan for our many constructive discussions.
R EFERENCES
[1] N. M. Enache, M. Netto, S. Mammar, and B. Lusetti, “Driver steering
assistance for lane departure avoidance,” Control engineering practice,
vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 642–651, 2009.
[2] I. J. Reagan and A. T. McCartt, “Observed activation status of lane
departure warning and forward collision warning of honda vehicles at
dealership service centers,” Traffic injury prevention, vol. 17, no. 8,
pp. 827–832, 2016.
[3] D. Zhao, H. Lam, H. Peng, S. Bao, D. J. LeBlanc, K. Nobukawa, and
C. S. Pan, “Accelerated Evaluation of Automated Vehicles Safety in
Lane Change Scenarios Based on Importance Sampling Techniques,”
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2016.

[4] D. Zhao, H. Peng, S. Bao, K. Nobukawa, D. J. LeBlanc, and C. S. Pan,
“Accelerated evaluation of automated vehicles using extracted naturalistic driving data,” in Proceeding for 24th International Symposium of
Vehicles on Road and Tracks, 2015.
[5] D. Zhao, X. Huang, H. Peng, H. Lam, and D. J. Leblanc, “Accelerated
Evaluation of Automated Vehicles in Car-Following Maneuvers,”
ArXiv, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02687
[6] J. Harding, G. Powell, R. Yoon, J. Fikentscher, C. Doyle, D. Sade,
M. Lukuc, J. Simons, and J. Wang, “Vehicle-to-vehicle communications: Readiness of V2V technology for application,” Tech. Rep., 2014.
[7] W. Wang, J. Xi, C. Liu, and X. Li, “Human-centered feed-forward
control of a vehicle steering system based on a driver’s path-following
characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2016.2606347.
[8] Z. Huang, D. Zhao, H. Lam, and D. J. LeBlanc, “Accelerated
Evaluation of Automated Vehicles Using Piecewise Mixture Models,”
submitted to IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
7 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08915
[9] D. Bezzina and J. Sayer, “Safety pilot model deployment: Test
conductor team report,” Report No. DOT HS, vol. 812, p. 171, 2014.
[10] G. P. Stein, O. Mano, and A. Shashua, “Vision-based ACC with a
single camera: bounds on range and range rate accuracy,” in Intelligent
vehicles symposium, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE. IEEE, 2003, pp. 120–
125.
[11] J. Lindblom and J. Samuelsson, “Bounded Support Gaussian Mixture
Modeling of Speech Spectra,” IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio
Processing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 88–99, 2003.
[12] T. M. Nguyen, Q. M. J. Wu, and H. Zhang, “Bounded generalized
Gaussian mixture model,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 9, pp.
3132–3142, 2014.
[13] G. Lee and C. Scott, “EM algorithms for multivariate Gaussian mixture
models with truncated and censored data,” Computational Statistics
and Data Analysis, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 2816–2829, 2012.
[14] G. Box, G. Jenkins, G. Reinsel, and G. Ljung, Time series analysis:
forecasting and control, 2015.

