Forwarding Collision Assessment with the Localization Information Using the Machine Learning Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeway crashes occupied 30% of total crashes. The advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) often underestimates or omits the necessary collision warning. To investigate the forward collision in complex traffic conditions, the TTC (time-to-collision) is regarded as a surrogate for collision risk assessment. The study aims to design a forward-collision warning method for ADAS in the urban freeway scenario. The testing vehicle is equipped with sensors and a satellite navigation system. The TTC was collected from the Xi’an Rao Cheng expressway for the car-following scenario for three days. A comprehensive Gaussian model, which consists of three sub-GMM models is applied to describe the TTC distribution. The vehicle trajectories were extracted in the car-following state. To improve the efficiency of the forwarding collision system, four seconds are chosen as an analysis window in the car-following state. Two time-series machine models were used to predict TTC in advance. The TTC prediction models were constructed on the basis of the long short-term memory (LSTM). The prediction result was compared with the deep belief network (DBN) model. The comparison results show that the LSTM model is faster than the DBN model. The number of iterations is 100. The loss function of the LSTM is 0.06. The LSTM outperforms the DBN model and is suitable for car-following warnings.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".