MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897892437 · doi:10.1109/re.2018.00-21

Software Transparency as a Key Requirement for Self-Driving Cars

2018· article· en· W2897892437 on OpenAlexafffund
Luiz Marcio Cysneiros, Majid Raffi, Julio César Sampaio do Prado Leite

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Self drivingCommercializationComputer scienceKey (lock)ScheduleSoftwareWork (physics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer securityBusinessTransport engineeringEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-Driving cars is a fast-growing area of study both in academia and industry. It is part of a broader domain which involves the development of software for Highly Automated Vehicles (HAV) and notions extracted from Artificial Intelligence/Autonomous Systems (AI/AS). There are many challenges that must be overcome to deliver self-driving cars in a manner that is readily accepted by consumers and society. Studies have shown that although many people are comfortable with the idea of AI helping them to operate their houses or schedule appointments, not many people are comfortable with the idea of cars being driven by AI algorithms. At the same time, insurance companies are concerned about vehicle liability issues and how to demonstrate who/what caused an accident. We believe that self-driving cars that demonstrate transparency in their operations will increase consumer trust which is pivotal to its acceptance and will pave the way for its commercialization and daily use. In this work, we investigate how to pursue the elicitation and modeling of transparency as a Non-Functional Requirement (NFR) to produce self-driving cars that are more robust.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207