MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939805904 · doi:10.1109/vtcfall.2018.8690657

Predicting Steering Actions for Self-Driving Cars Through Deep Learning

2018· article· en· W2939805904 on OpenAlexaff
Chaojie Ou, Safaa M. Bedawi, Arief Koesdwiady, Fakhri Karray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf drivingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAutomotive engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a visual-based end to end lane following system which fuses temporal and spatial visual information to predict current and future control variables. Previous works only predict control variables for the next time point with the current visual information. In contrast, based on a long-term recurrent convolutional neural network, we investigate the effect of fusing history information of different lengths to predict the imminent control variable in different future horizons. Experimental results show that with long history visual information, the neural network can approximate human driving behaviours with high precision. Consistent with intuition is that the influence of history information declines as time moves forward. Meanwhile, history information of the past 0.6 seconds is of most information for the prediction, and the Mean Square Error (MSE) for the steering command prediction with 0.6s history information is 8.378 × 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-1</sup> . By training the model with control signals that lag behind visual information as targets, the testing result shows that it is possible to predict future control variables with great accuracy, while the best prediction accuracy happens to the steering command 0.4 seconds later.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207