Evaluation of Preferred Automated Driving Patterns Based on a Driving Propensity Using Fuzzy Inference System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid advancements in automated driving technologies, there is a growing demand for the commercialization of advanced automated vehicles. Through these technologies, we envision enjoying various types of entertainment in automated vehicles, apart from manual driving. To achieve widespread acceptance of automated driving, appropriated interactions between users and automated driving systems must occur. From users’ perspective, automated driving vehicle must be operated within users’ comfort, safe, and satisfying perception based on their personal driving style such as aggressive and defensive driving. Thus, during the motion planning phase of automated driving, consideration should be given to the implementation of a behavioral algorithm based on user propensity. However, user preferences for automated driving patterns exhibit considerable variation, making it essential to conduct an in‐depth investigation into the preferred automated driving patterns corresponding to users’ propensity. In this study, we confirmed that the characteristics of preferred automated driving patterns can be deduced from comprehensive driving propensities, which were derived by combining inherent driving propensities with simulator‐based driving behavior characteristics using the fuzzy logic method. This study confirmed that in the era of automated driving, the preferred automated driving patterns may vary depending on the propensity from the user’s perspective. Considering these differences, it is meaningful in which it suggests the need for automated driving motions to be implemented based on individual preferences that appear according to human factors such as user propensity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".