Human–Machine Collaboration for Automated Driving Using an Intelligent Two‐Phase Haptic Interface
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to realizing fully autonomous driving, human intervention is periodically required to guarantee vehicle safety. This poses a new challenge in human–machine interaction, particularly during the control authority transition from automated functionality to a human driver. Herein, this challenge is addressed by proposing an intelligent haptic interface based on a newly developed two‐phase human–machine interaction model. The intelligent haptic torque is applied to the steering wheel and switches its functionality between predictive guidance and haptic assistance according to the varying state and control ability of human drivers. This helps drivers gradually resume manual control during takeover. The developed approach is validated by conducting vehicle experiments with 26 participants. The results suggest that the proposed method effectively enhances the driving state recovery and control performance of human drivers during takeover compared with an existing approach. Thus, this new method further improves the safety and smoothness of human–machine interaction in automated vehicles.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it