MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285272860 · doi:10.1109/tiv.2022.3188662

Prediction-Uncertainty-Aware Decision-Making for Autonomous Vehicles

2022· article· en· W4285272860 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolin Tang, Kai Yang, Hong Wang, Jiahang Wu, Yechen Qin, Wenhao Yu, Dongpu Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceField (mathematics)Motion (physics)Process (computing)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion prediction is the fundamental input for decision-making in autonomous vehicles. The current motion prediction solutions are designed with a strong reliance on black box predictions based on neural networks (NNs), which is unacceptable for safety-critical applications. Motion prediction with high uncertainty can cause conflicting decisions and even catastrophic results. To address this issue, an uncertainty estimation approach based on the deep ensemble technique is proposed for motion prediction in this paper. Subsequently, the estimated uncertainty is considered in the decision-making module to improve driving safety. Firstly, a motion prediction model based on long short-term memory (LSTM) is built and the deep ensemble technique is utilized to obtain both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty of the prediction model. Besides, an uncertainty-aware potential field is developed to process the prediction uncertainty. Furthermore, a decision-making framework is proposed based on the model predictive control algorithm that considers the uncertainty-aware potential field, road boundaries, and multiple constraints of vehicle dynamics. Finally, the public availableNGSIM,HighDandINTERACTIONdatasets are used to evaluate the proposed motion prediction model. More importantly, two traffic scenarios are also extracted fromNGSIMandINTERACTIONdatasets to verify the effectiveness of the proposed decision-making method and in particular, its real-time performance is shown by employing a hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) experiment bench.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent VehiclesSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207