A Unified Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Driving Vehicles.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Driving System (ADS) safety assessment is a crucial step before deployment on public roads. Despite the importance of ADS safety assurance to test ADS reliability, most of the existing work is strongly attached to a single testing data source (i.e. on-road collected testing data, simulation or test track). Each source has different fidelity levels and capabilities, therefore there is a lack of a solution that allows for all data sources to complement each other to enable agnostic end to end evaluation and contributes towards different testing goals. Evaluation of ADSs is considered as a mandatory step in the autonomous vehicle development life cycle, demanding a reliable and comprehensive method is important. Here, we propose a source-agnostic framework, which can perform ADS evaluation compatible with different testing sources. Our findings show that this comprehensive solution can save time, effort and money consumed in ADS evaluation.
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 | 0.034 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".