An Automatic Emergency Braking Model considering Driver’s Intention Recognition of the Front Vehicle
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driver’s intention of the front vehicle plays an important role in the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system. If the front vehicle brakes suddenly, there is potential collision risk for following vehicle. Therefore, we propose a driver’s intention recognition model for the front vehicle, which is based on the backpropagation (BP) neural network and hidden Markov model (HMM). The brake pedal, accelerator pedal, and vehicle speed data are used as the input of the proposed BP-HMM model to recognize the driver’s intention, which includes uniform driving, normal braking, and emergency braking. According to the recognized driver’s intention transmitted by Internet of vehicles, an AEB model for the following vehicle is proposed, which can dynamically change the critical braking distance under different driving conditions to avoid rear-end collision. In order to verify the performance of the proposed models, we conducted driver’s intention recognition and AEB simulation tests in the cosimulation environment of Simulink and PreScan. The simulation test results show that the average recognition accuracy of the proposed BP-HMM model was 98%, which was better than that of the BP and HMM models. In the Car to Car Rear moving (CCRm) and Car to Car Rear braking (CCRb) tests, the minimum relative distance between the following vehicle and the front vehicle was within the range of 1.5 m–2.7 m and 2.63 m–5.28 m, respectively. The proposed AEB model has better collision avoidance performance than the traditional AEB model and can adapt to individual drivers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it