MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897466419 · doi:10.1109/ivs.2018.8500480

A Novel Control Framework of Haptic Take-Over System for Automated Vehicles

2018· article· en· W2897466419 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Lv, Huaji Wang, Dongpu Cao, Yifan Zhao, Mark J. M. Sullman, Daniel J. Auger, James Brighton, Rebecca Matthias, Lee Skrypchuk, Alexandros Mouzakitis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersJaguar Land Rover
KeywordsHaptic technologyWorkloadProcess (computing)Computer scienceAutomationTrajectoryController (irrigation)TorqueControl (management)Control engineeringHandoverDriving simulatorSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous driving presents an exciting new development in vehicle technology. It poses a new challenge in driver-automation collaboration particularly during handover transitions between human and machine. In order to deal with this problem, this paper proposes a novel control framework for the haptic take-over system. The high-level framework of the haptic take-over control system, which takes driver cognitive workload, neuromuscular dynamics and optimal trajectory planning into consideration, is developed. Under the proposed framework, the determination approach of the optimal input sequence is introduced. The model of the allowed driver take-over authority, which is associated with driver's cognitive workload, as well as muscle readiness during take- over, is investigated and developed. The haptic feedback torque controller is then designed so as to minimize the deviation between the allowed control authority and driver's current degree of participation. A handover process, along with the proposed take-over control method, is also simulated. The simulation results validate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207