MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295832134 · doi:10.1109/jas.2022.105866

Interaction-Aware Cut-In Trajectory Prediction and Risk Assessment in Mixed Traffic

2022· article· en· W4295832134 on OpenAlexaff
Xianglei Zhu, Wen Hu, Zejian Deng, Jinwei Zhang, Fengqing Hu, Rui Zhou, Keqiu Li, Fei‐Yue Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSpecial Project for Research and Development in Key areas of Guangdong Province
KeywordsTrajectoryComputer scienceSoftmax functionSupport vector machineSigmoid functionCollisionGaussianFunction (biology)InferenceDimension (graph theory)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceSimulationMathematicsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately predicting the trajectories of surrounding vehicles and assessing the collision risks are essential to avoid side and rear-end collisions caused by cut-in. To improve the safety of autonomous vehicles in the mixed traffic, this study proposes a cut-in prediction and risk assessment method with considering the interactions of multiple traffic participants. The integration of the support vector machine and Gaussian mixture model (SVM-GMM) is developed to simultaneously predict cut-in behavior and trajectory. The dimension of the input features is reduced through Chebyshev fitting to improve the training efficiency as well as the online inference performance. Based on the predicted trajectory of the cut-in vehicle and the responsive actions of the autonomous vehicles, two risk measurements are introduced to formulate the comprehensive interaction risk through the combination of Sigmoid function and Softmax function. Finally, the comparative analysis is performed to validate the proposed method using the naturalistic driving data. The results show that the proposed method can predict the trajectory with higher precision and effectively evaluate the risk level of a cut-in maneuver compared to the methods without considering interaction.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica SinicaSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207