Robust Supervisors for Intersection Collision Avoidance in the Presence of Uncontrolled Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the design and validation of a centralized controller, called a supervisor, for collision avoidance of multiple human-driven vehicles at a road intersection, considering measurement errors, unmodeled dynamics, and uncontrolled vehicles. We design the supervisor to be least restrictive, that is, to minimize its interferences with human drivers. This performance metric is given a precise mathematical form by splitting the design process into two subproblems: verification problem and supervisor-design problem. The verification problem determines whether an input signal exists that makes controlled vehicles avoid collisions at all future times. The supervisor is designed such that if the verification problem returns yes, it allows the drivers' desired inputs; otherwise, it overrides controlled vehicles to prevent collisions. As a result, we propose exact and efficient supervisors. The exact supervisor solves the verification problem exactly but with combinatorial complexity. In contrast, the efficient supervisor solves the verification problem within a quantified approximation bound in polynomially bounded time with the number of controlled vehicles. We validate the performances of both supervisors through simulation and experimental testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".