MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905316674 · doi:10.1109/mits.2018.2884515

Parallel Motion Planning: Learning a Deep Planning Model against Emergencies

2018· article· en· W2905316674 on OpenAlexaff
Long Chen, Xuemin Hu, Bo Tang, Dongpu Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlannerComputer scienceSoftware deploymentMotion planningArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)RobotSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To handle the issue of preventing emergencies for motion planning in autonomous driving, we present a novel parallel motion planning framework. Artificial traffic scenes are firstly constructed based on real traffic scenes. A deep planning model which can learn from both real and artificial scenes is developed and used to make planning decisions in an end-to-end mode. To prevent emergencies, a generative adversarial networks (GAN) model is designed and learns from the artificial emergencies from artificial traffic scenes. During deployment, the well-trained GAN model is used to generate multiple virtual emergencies based on the current real scene, and the well-trained planning model simultaneously makes different planning decisions for both virtual scenes and the current scenes. The final planning decision is made by comprehensively analyzing observations and virtual emergencies. Through parallel planning, the planner can timely make rational decision without a large number of calculations when an emergency occurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems MagazineSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207