MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046335568 · doi:10.1155/2020/9405760

Study on a Right-Turning Intelligent Vehicle Collision Warning and Avoidance Algorithm Based on Monte Carlo Simulation

2020· article· en· W3046335568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chuanliang Shen, Zhang Shan, Zhenhai Gao, Binyu Zhou, Wei Su, Hongyu Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCollisionCollision avoidanceMonte Carlo methodSimulationComputer scienceActive safetyAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)EngineeringMathematicsAutomotive engineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of intelligent vehicle technology, the demand for advanced driver assistant systems kept increasing. To improve the performance of the active safety systems, we focused on right-turning vehicle’s collision warning and avoidance. We put forward an algorithm based on Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the collision probability between the right-turning vehicle and another vehicle (or pedestrian) in intersections. We drew collision probability curves which used time-to-collision as the horizontal axis and collision probability as the vertical axis. We established a three-level collision warning system and used software to calculate and simulate the collision probability and warning process. To avoid the collision actively when turning right, a two-stage braking strategy is applied. Taking four right-turning collision conditions as examples, the two-stage braking strategy was applied, analysing and comparing the anteroposterior curve diagram simultaneously to avoid collision actively and reduce collision probability. By comparison, the collision probability 2 s before active collision avoidance was more than 80% and the collision probability may even reach 100% in certain conditions. To improve the active safety performance, the two-stage braking strategy can reduce the collision probability from exceeding 50% to approaching 0% in 2 s and reduce collision probability to less than 5% in 3 s. By changing four initial positions, the collision probability curve calculation algorithm and the two-stage braking strategy are validated and analysed. The results verified the rationality of the collision probability curve calculation algorithm and the two-stage braking strategy.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207