MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390777611 · doi:10.1109/mits.2023.3345930

How to Guarantee Driving Safety for Autonomous Vehicles in a Real-World Environment: A Perspective on Self-Evolution Mechanisms

2024· article· en· W4390777611 on OpenAlexaff
Shuo Yang, Yanjun Huang, Li Li, Shuo Feng, Xiaoxiang Na, Hong Chen, Amir Khajepour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Computer scienceWork (physics)Feature (linguistics)Autonomous system (mathematics)Systems engineeringArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A succession of accidents shows that production vehicles with autonomous driving systems do not work safely in real-world environments, especially when facing unseen scenarios. Therefore, how to ensure that autonomous systems drive more safely becomes a challenge. Thanks to the self-learning ability of human beings, human drivers can gradually learn how to drive from a driving test with typical and finite scenarios to the real world with infinite ones. Analogically, it is believed that accidents can be largely reduced once the designed autonomous vehicles are endowed with a self-learning ability to adapt to the unseen and then to infinite scenarios in the real world. Accordingly, this work proposes a principle to design autonomous systems with a self-evolution feature not just for a single vehicle but for a group. In addition, it describes our development of a self-evolution autonomous system as an illustrative case study of implementing such principles in practice. The ultimate aim is to propose a feasible solution to speed up the design process of a fully safe autonomous system.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems MagazineSame topicFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing SystemsFrench-language works237,207