Driver Identification Using Driving Behavior, Habits and Driver Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a driver identification scheme is studied using general driver inputs such as accelerating, braking and steering behavior, in addition to the settings related to driver’s physical characteristics, such as driver’s seat position. Several drivers are selected with various ages, genders and driving skills to participate in the study. Their driving data is collected using the same test vehicle, and while driving on the same routes. This helps eliminate the inherent vehicle to vehicle variations and the impact of the route differences and enables the identification algorithm to focus on the driving behavior. The driving routes are broken down into shorter segments where the driving features are calculated and populated in these segments. To reduce the identification bias towards certain rare events in the ride, the features are reset at the beginning of each trip segment. This additionally helps to ensure that there is no spill of feature values across the segments. Trip segmentation also facilitates splitting the dataset into training and testing sets in a way that route diversity is present in both sets. Several classification techniques are studied to learn the driving characteristics of the participants in the experiments. It is observed that ensemble classifiers generally outperform single classifiers as measured by the metric of area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve. It is also observed that classification performance can vary noticeably from driver to driver, making it more difficult to distinguish some drivers with similar driving habits. The identification algorithm is also shown driving data of unseen (held-out) drivers and its performance is studied. Finally, it is observed that inclusion of driver’s seat and mirror position that include some of the driver’s physical attributes improves the identification performance significantly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".