MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001404686 · doi:10.4271/2020-01-0138

A Forward Collision Warning System Using Deep Reinforcement Learning

2020· article· en· W3001404686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire Detection and Safety Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningCollisionComputer scienceWarning systemCollision avoidanceArtificial intelligenceComputer securityTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Forward collision warning is one of the most challenging concerns in the safety of autonomous vehicles. A cooperation between many sensors such as LIDAR, Radar and camera helps to enhance the safety. Apart from the importance of having a reliable object detector, the safety system should have requisite capabilities to make reasonable decisions in the moment. In this work, we concentrate on detecting front vehicles of autonomous cars using a monocular camera, beyond only a detection method. In fact, we devise a solution based on a cooperation between a deep object detector and a reinforcement learning method to provide forward collision warning signals. The proposed method models the relation between acceleration, distance and collision point using the area of the bounding box related to the front vehicle. An agent of learning automata as a reinforcement learning method interacts with the environment to learn how to behave in eclectic hazardous situations. The agent follows a deterministic but variable structure learning automata in order to find the collision point in different status. The proposed learning automata method has a nested structure in its states and every state has a memory to place the time duration between the entrance and the collision point. The Agent makes decisions based on a specific number of previous data to engross the impact of time. Since it is almost impossible to capture the data of hazardous situations, we design the essential scenarios via a virtual simulation environment. Eventually, after some trails and errors the algorithm reaches to a convergence point and extracts the model of front vehicle motions.</div></div>

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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