An Optimized Collision Avoidance Decision-Making System for Autonomous Ships under Human-Machine Cooperation Situations
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
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASSs) are attracting increasing attention in recent years as it brings new opportunities for water transportation. Previous studies aim to propose fully autonomous system on collision avoidance decisions and operations, either focus on supporting conflict detection or providing with collision avoidance decisions. However, the human-machine cooperation is essential in practice at the first stage of automation. An optimized collision avoidance decision-making system is proposed in this paper, which involves risk appetite (RA) as the orientation. The RA oriented collision avoidance decision-making system (RA-CADMS) is developed based on human-machine interaction during ship collision avoidance, while being consistent with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and Ordinary Practice of Seamen (OPS). It facilitates automatic collision avoidance and safeguards the MASS remote control. Moreover, the proposed RA-CADMS are used in several encounter situations to demonstrate the preference. The results show that the RA-CADMS is capable of providing accurate collision avoidance decisions, while ensuring efficiency of MASS maneuvering under different RA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it