Hybrid Autonomous Driving Guidance Strategy Combining Deep Reinforcement Learning and Expert System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex traffic and road environment pose considerable challenges to the accuracy, timeliness, and adaptive ability of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) in making driving decisions. This paper uses vehicle collaboration and integrates the adaptive learning capabilities of machine learning and the interpretation capabilities of expert systems (ESs) in a unified architecture to form a hybrid autonomous driving guidance system, which not only solves the “bottleneck” of knowledge acquisition during the construction of expert systems but also solves the “black box” phenomenon of machine learning in the decision-making process. First, an autonomous driving strategy based on deep reinforcement learning (DRL) is proposed for CAVs to make decisions and extract corresponding rules. Next, we design an ES knowledge base expansion method including rule extraction, rule sharing, and rule test. Particularly, vehicular blockchain is adopted to ensure user privacy and data security during the rule-sharing process. Third, hybrid autonomous driving guidance combining ES and machine learning is proposed for CAVs to make accurate and efficient decisions in different driving environments. Once the strategy is well trained, it can effectively guide CAVs to cope with the complex traffic environment. Extensive simulations validate the performance of our proposal in terms of decision-making accuracy, effectiveness, and safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".