MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205222881 · doi:10.1109/ojits.2021.3138953

Universally Safe Swerve Maneuvers for Autonomous Driving

2021· article· en· W4205222881 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsBrakeRSSKinematicsComputer scienceVehicle dynamicsAutomotive engineeringControl (management)SimulationControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper characterizes safe following distances for on-road driving when vehicles can avoid collisions by either braking or by swerving into an adjacent lane. In particular, we focus on safety as defined in the Responsibility-Sensitive Safety (RSS) framework. We extend RSS by introducing swerve maneuvers as a valid response in addition to the already present brake maneuver. These swerve maneuvers use the more realistic kinematic bicycle model rather than the double integrator model of RSS. When vehicles are able to swerve or brake, it is shown that their required safe following distance at higher speeds is less than that required through braking alone. In addition, when all vehicles follow this new distance, they are provably safe. The use of the kinematic bicycle model is then validated by comparing these swerve maneuvers to that of a dynamic single-track model. The analysis in this paper can be used to inform both offline safety validation as well as safe control and planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it