Extraction of Optimal Measurements for Drowsy Driving Detection considering Driver Fingerprinting Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contributions of measurements for detecting drowsy driving are determined by calculation parameters, which are directly related to the accuracy of drowsiness detection. The previous studies utilized the same Unified Calculation Parameters (UCPs) to compute each driver’s measurements. However, since each driver has unique driving behavior characteristics, namely, driver fingerprinting, Individual Drivers’ Best Calculation Parameters (IDBCPs) making measurements more discriminative for drowsiness are various. Regardless of the difference in driver fingerprinting among the drivers being tested, using UCPs instead of IDBCPs to compute measurements will limit the drowsiness-detection performance of the measurements and reduce drowsiness-detection accuracies at the individual driver level. Thus, this paper proposed a model to optimize calculation parameters of individual driver’s measurements and to extract individual driver’s measurements that effectively distinguish drowsy driving. Through real vehicle experiments, we collected naturalistic driving data and subjective drowsy levels evaluated by the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale. Eight nonintrusive drowsiness-related measurements were calculated by double-layer sliding time windows. In the proposed model, we firstly applied the Wilcoxon test to analyze differences between measurements of the awake state and drowsy state, and constructed the fitness function reflecting the relationship between the calculation parameters and measurement’s drowsiness-detection performance. Secondly, the genetic algorithms were used to optimize fitness functions to obtain measured IDBCPs. Finally, we selected measurements calculated by IDBCPs that can distinguish drowsy driving to constitute individual drivers’ optimal drowsiness-detection measurement set. To verify the advantages of IDBCPs, the measurements calculated by UCPs and IDBCPs were, respectively, used to build driver-specific drowsiness-detection models: DF_U and DF_I based on the Fisher discriminant algorithm. The mean drowsiness-detection accuracies of DF_U and DF_I were, respectively, 85.25% and 91.06%. It indicated that IDBCPs could enhance measurements’ drowsiness-detection performance and improve the drowsiness-detection accuracies. This paper contributed to the establishment of personalized drowsiness-detection models considering driver fingerprinting differences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".