MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954388198 · doi:10.1109/icit.2019.8755084

Evaluating Architecture Impacts on Deep Imitation Learning Performance for Autonomous Driving

2019· article· en· W2954388198 on OpenAlexaff
Parham M. Kebria, Roohallah Alizadehsani, Syed Moshfeq Salaken, Ibrahim Hossain, Abbas Khosravi, H M Dipu Kabir, Afsaneh Koohestani, Houshyar Asadi, Saeid Nahavandi, Edward Tunsel, Mehrdad Saif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectureImitationDeep learningArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer architecturePsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imitation learning has gained huge popularity due to its promises in different fields such as robotics and autonomous systems. A great deal of past research work in the field of imitation learning has been devoted to developing efficient and effective policies using deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The performance of CNN-based control policies intimately depends on the network architecture. Determination of the optimal architecture for CNNs is still a hot research topic for the deep learning community. This study comprehensively investigates and quantifies the impact of CNN architecture on the performance of learned policy for an autonomous vehicle. CNN models with different architectures (number of layers and filters) are fed by visual information from multiple cameras obtained from multiple driving simulations. These networks are trained to precisely find the mapping between visual information and the steering angle. Two ensemble approaches are also introduced to further improve the overall accuracy of steering angle estimations. Obtained results indicate that deeper networks show a better performance than less deep networks during autonomous driving. Also it is observed that best results are achieved by ensemble approaches.

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)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207