MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autonomous Learning Intelligent Vehicles Engineering: ALIVE 1.0

2020· article· en· W3116223685 on OpenAlexaff
Jihene Rezgui, Émile Gagné, Guillaume Blain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCollège de MaisonneuveLaboratoire Recherche Informatique Maisonneuve
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing number of vehicles on roads brings more risks associated with vehicular travel. Nevertheless, with the massive attraction towards self-driving vehicles and the use of artificial intelligence, a trained physical Autonomous Vehicle (AV) is now a major part of transports future. This paper discusses the limitations of the related research based on autonomous vehicles; particularly those who are not taking into account the real-world physics. It also proposes an Autonomous Learning Intelligent Vehicles Engineering, called ALIVE to let each vehicle have additional information about its surroundings in order to get an extended perception of its environment. Moreover, ALIVE car sensors will gather in real-time the required data concerning the vehicles environment which are fused into a learning algorithm predicting the vehicle's response. We tested our algorithm through different mazes to evaluate its efficiency to avoid obstacles and its capacity to adapt to any type of terrain. This has been done to make ALIVE versatile, open source, low-cost and work in any environment. Preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of ALIVE in terms of obstacle avoidance and delay minimization. Besides, we hope that our project can be used by other researchers to test their artificial intelligence in the real world instead of keeping it in a 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207