MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982175918 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-0623

Collision Prevention While Driving in Real Traffic Flow Using Emotional Learning Fuzzy Inference Systems

2013· article· en· W1982175918 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Zarringhalam, Ali Ghaffari

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Transportation Safety · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFederal Highway Administration
KeywordsFuzzy inference systemCollisionInferenceComputer scienceFuzzy inferenceFuzzy logicAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemArtificial intelligenceFuzzy control systemComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper proposes a methodology for collision prevention in car following scenarios. For this purpose, Emotional Learning Fuzzy Inference System (ELFIS) approach is used to simulate and predict the behavior of a driver-vehicle-unit in a short time horizon ahead in the future. Velocity of the follower vehicle and relative distance between the follower and the lead vehicles are predicted in a parallel structure. Performance of the proposed algorithm is assessed using real traffic data and superior accuracy of this method is demonstrated through comparisons with another available technique (ANFIS). The predicted future driving states are then used to judge about safety of the current driving pattern. The algorithm is used to generate a warning message while a safe-distance keeping measure is violated in order to prevent a collision. Satisfactory performance of the proposed method is demonstrated through simulations using real traffic data. The proposed method can be applied, in real time, for a variety of applications including driver assistant and collision prevention systems as well as other intelligent transportation applications.</div></div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Transportation SafetySame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207