Analysing classes of motion drive algorithms based on paired comparison techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paired comparison experiment using 23 subjects was run on the VIRTTEX driving simulator to compare a lane position based motion drive algorithm (MDA) with a classical MDA for a highway speed, lane change manoeuvre. Two different tuning states of the lane position algorithm and four different tuning states for the classical algorithm were tested. The subjective fidelity of the six different motion cases was compared with each other and a Bradley–Terry model was fit to find the fidelity merit of each case. In addition, the driving performance of the subjects for six motion cases was recorded and compared. The motion-tuning cases were selected such that the trade-off in motion quality between overall motion scaling and motion shape distortion (shape-error), as well as the trade-off between lateral specific force and roll-rate motion errors, could be studied. It was found that when the overall scaling is the same, drivers perform better with the lane position algorithm than with the the classical algorithm. A well-tuned, manoeuvre-specific, classical MDA, however, did achieve a subjective fidelity level on a par with the lane position MDA. A generically tuned classical MDA, however, has a significantly reduced fidelity and driving performance when compared with a lane position algorithm with the same scale factor. A strong trade-off between motion shape-errors and overall motion scaling was found. A small increase in motion cue shape-error, combined with an increase in the scale factor from 0.3 to 0.5, led to improved performance and increased subjective fidelity. The results of the experiment also suggest that simulator motion can be improved by reducing the angular-rate shape-error at the expense of the specific force shape-error (while keeping the total normalised shape-error constant).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".