MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112624553 · doi:10.1155/2020/5172305

An Automatic Emergency Braking Model considering Driver’s Intention Recognition of the Front Vehicle

2020· article· en· W3112624553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Yang, Jiajun Liu, Kaixia Zhou, Z.G. Zhang, Xiaolei Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesChang'an UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBrakeHidden Markov modelCollisionFront (military)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringBackpropagationArtificial neural networkSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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