Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nissan's Crash-Free R&D: 7 Cute Robots Mimicking Bees and Fish

Posted by timothy on from the if-they-could-only-mate-with-roomba dept.

cartechboy writes "As Nissan develops autonomous cars for its 2020 target date, the company's engineers are modeling the tech after behaviors seen in bumblebees and fish. Nissan actually tests self-navigation algorithms in seven small toy-looking robots called EPORO. The robots have 180-degree vision (modeled after bees) and monitor each others' positions, travel nose to nose and avoid collisions--just like a school of fish. Getting small robots to zip around without bumping into things might be the first step in getting cars to do the same."

10 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. travel nose to nose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fish don't travel nose to nose. That would cause issues. Nose to tail seems to work much better for them

  2. Lurking Skynet approves by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, not a whole lot of zipping - more like ambling. I think they're going to need a whole lot better processing to handle movement at 45mph, much less 75mph.
    Still, emergent behavior is definitely a strong idea... just wondering how the "groups" form - what sort of negotiation is needed? Will it require some form of authorization/authentication? What happens when the "group" loses an individual (ie, power/comm failure)? What about rogue elements?

    Lots of stuff to study and apply - but it still looks far off in implementation. I'd love to see this research combined with Google's driverless car tech :)

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  3. They should make it resemble Bumblebee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    and transform into a 30 foot tall robot with plasma cannons....

  4. a wet blanket by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Getting small robots to zip around without bumping into things might be the first step in getting cars to do the same."

    I seriously hope they are past the 'first step' of modeling things in small robots. If they are planning on releasing this thing on the road in the next six years, they need to have tech that is just being refined at this point.

    For comparison, it can take six years to test and refine avionics software, even after all the algorithms are known. This software needs to be extremely reliable. Remember that even if a server has 99.999% uptime, it's still going to crash every year or so. When people's lives are on the line, you're going to want 99.99999% availability. That kind of software is not easy to make. If they are still doing fundamental research, they aren't going to have it done in time.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:a wet blanket by Shatrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Human drivers are far short of 99.999999% reliable, so I say hurry it up even if they're at Five Eights reliability...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:a wet blanket by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you are mixing up topics. You are looking at how often the human makes a mistake that results in a collision. My comment didn't even get to the topic of mistakes, it was talking about catastrophic software failures. A human has a Mean Time to Failure of 80 years.

      If you want to make a human comparison, you have to ask, "how often does a human have a heart attack or other catastrophic failure on the road?" This is just the base system, you need to make it reliable before you even get to talking about the quality of the algorithms. It's great you have a perfect driving algorithm, but if the OS crashes and needs to reboot once a year while driving, then no one will care if you have a perfect algorithm. Your car is having the equivalent of a heart-attack every year on the road.

      It's harder than writing a typical website. To get an idea of the difficulties involved, remember that at that level of reliability you need to take into consideration that cosmic rays will corrupt your memory. ECC can be helpful, but you can still get corruption. So imagine if you have a for loop, and your index gets corrupted. How will you guarantee that it doesn't become an infinite loop?

      These problems are known and can be solved, but the point is, it's really hard. It will take six years of effort, and that is assuming the algorithms are ready now. If they are not, then they won't have it ready by 2020.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:Seems a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not all cars have to be autonomous for this to work. The autonomous cars will just be traveling in groups, which will be very efficient. I can even foresee dedicated lanes for autonomous cars.

  6. This is the way to go. by intermodal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This kind of system needs to be based on natural and fluid situations. Trying to base them on as-presently-constituted traffic laws is a mistake no matter how you slice it. The paradigm has different advantages and shortcomings than manual driving. Build a good anti-collision system, and then as needed, add the other layers on top instead of building a base upon assumptions based on law.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. Problem is sensors and processing. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They need a system that can identify visually, as well as with radar that can not be fouled by other radar to scan the road ahead. Because I can see scumbags setting up a radar broadcaster in their junker to cause an autoguide car to hit them for insurance money.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Re:Seems a stretch by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually recently discovered why BMW drivers love your arse so much.

    It's because of their active cruise control system. I was demonstrated a 5 series' cruise control system, which got so close to the car in front it terrified me. If I were driving the car in front, I would probably have been thinking "bloody beemer driver" at that point.

    So actually, it's already the fault of autonomous cars that people get up close and personal behind you.