Explainable Trust-aware Selection of Autonomous Vehicles Using LIME for One-Shot Federated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous driving has been gaining a lot of attention in the field of transportation technology in recent years. The use of autonomous vehicles has the potential to reduce the number of road accidents caused by human error, improve traffic flow, increase fuel efficiency and save time for travelers. In federated learning systems, selecting trustworthy autonomous vehicles (AVs) to participate in training is critical for ensuring system performance and reliability. In this work, we propose a trust-aware approach to AV selection that incorporates the performance of each AV using the Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) method and One-Shot Federated Learning. We modify the XAI LIME Deep Q-learning-based AV selection model to include the trust metric, resulting in the Trust-Aware XAI LIME Deep Q-learning-based AV selection model. Our experiments show that the trust-aware approach outperforms the standard approach in terms of both accuracy and reliability, demonstrating the effectiveness of incorporating trust metrics in AV selection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| 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".