Finding better learning algorithms for self-driving cars: An overview of the LAOP platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cars are becoming more and more intelligent, embedded with a range of sensors to give them local perception of their environment (LIDARs, cameras, etc.). Trendy companies like Google and Tesla are actively testing cars on American roads that can drive without any human interaction [1]. Neural networks are the modern approach for autonomous cars. However, an inefficient neural network algorithm will make the learning process slower and will result in a less reliable autonomous vehicle. In this paper, we will introduce a platform built in JAVA named LAOP (Learning Algorithm Optimization Platform) [2] while explaining the solutions we found to make it easy for researchers to test and compare their own algorithms. Then, we will show how we have integrated a natural selection algorithm with a neural network in order to improve them. Moreover, we will demonstrate how the Fully Connected Neural Network and the NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) [3] algorithms are implemented in the context of vehicular learning on LAOP. Finally, we will display the different results extracted from LAOP by tuning several various parameters such as the weight mutation chance and the car density in the simulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".