MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934625602 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2019.2908425

Driver Activity Recognition for Intelligent Vehicles: A Deep Learning Approach

2019· article· en· W2934625602 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Xing, Chen Lv, Huaji Wang, Efstathios Velenis, Fei‐Yue Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningTransfer of learningDistractionBinary classificationMobile phoneDistracted drivingComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driver decisions and behaviors are essential factors that can affect the driving safety. To understand the driver behaviors, a driver activities recognition system is designed based on the deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) in this paper. Specifically, seven common driving activities are identified, which are the normal driving, right mirror checking, rear mirror checking, left mirror checking, using in-vehicle radio device, texting, and answering the mobile phone, respectively. Among these activities, the first four are regarded as normal driving tasks, while the rest three are classified into the distraction group. The experimental images are collected using a low-cost camera, and ten drivers are involved in the naturalistic data collection. The raw images are segmented using the Gaussian mixture model to extract the driver body from the background before training the behavior recognition CNN model. To reduce the training cost, transfer learning method is applied to fine tune the pre-trained CNN models. Three different pre-trained CNN models, namely, AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and ResNet50 are adopted and evaluated. The detection results for the seven tasks achieved an average of 81.6% accuracy using the AlexNet, 78.6% and 74.9% accuracy using the GoogLeNet and ResNet50, respectively. Then, the CNN models are trained for the binary classification task and identify whether the driver is being distracted or not. The binary detection rate achieved 91.4% accuracy, which shows the advantages of using the proposed deep learning approach. Finally, the real-world application are analyzed and discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations395
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207