Shareable Driving Style Learning and Analysis with a Hierarchical Latent Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving style is usually used to characterize driving behavior for a driver or a group of drivers. However, it remains unclear how one individual's driving style shares certain common grounds with other drivers. Our insight is that driving behavior is a sequence of responses to the weighted mixture of latent driving styles that are shareable within and between individuals. To this end, this paper develops a hierarchical latent model to learn the relationship between driving behavior and driving styles. We first propose a fragment-based approach to represent complex sequential driving behavior, allowing for sufficiently representing driving behavior in a low-dimension feature space. Then, we provide an analytical formulation for the interaction of driving behavior and shareable driving style with a hierarchical latent model by introducing the mechanism of Dirichlet allocation. Our developed model is finally validated and verified with 100 drivers in naturalistic driving settings with urban and highways. Experimental results reveal that individuals share driving styles within and between them. We also analyzed the influence of personalities (e.g., age, gender, and driving experience) on driving styles and found that a naturally aggressive driver would not always keep driving aggressively (i.e., could behave calmly sometimes) but with a higher proportion of aggressiveness than other types of drivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".