Estimation of Driver Lane Change Intention Based on the LSTM and Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid and correct estimation of driver lane change intention plays an important role in the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), which could make the driver improve the reliability of the ADAS system and help to decrease driver workload. In this study, a method based on the long short-term memory network (LSTM) and Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is proposed. The model consists of a preliminary decision-making label and a final decision-making label. Driver visual information, head orientation, and vehicle dynamics are collected by preliminary decision-making label. Then, LSTM is used to calculate the initial probability of the driver lane change (left, right, and lane keeping) maneuver intention. The outputs of LSTM are normalized and assigned a basic probability by the Dempster–Shafer evidence theory. The final decision-making label analyzes the information and outputs the probability of each lane change intention and the decision is to identify the driver's current intention. The experimental results show that the accuracy of the model is 90.7% for the intention of changing left and 89.1% for the intention of changing right. The outcome of this work is an essential component for all levels of road vehicle automation.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".