MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393161522 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30388

Knowledge Distillation from Single-Task Teachers to Multi-Task Student for End-to-End Autonomous Driving

2024· article· en· W4393161522 on OpenAlexaff
Pedram Agand

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnd-to-end principleTask (project management)End userComputer scienceDistillationEngineeringChemistryChromatographyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the domain of end-to-end autonomous driving, conventional sensor fusion techniques exhibit inadequacies, particularly when facing challenging scenarios with numerous dynamic agents. Imitation learning hampers the performance by the expert and encounters issues with out-of-distribution challenges. To overcome these limitations, we propose a transformer-based algorithm designed to fuse diverse representations from RGB-D cameras through knowledge distillation. This approach leverages insights from multi-task teachers to enhance the learning capabilities of single-task students, particularly in a Reinforcement Learning (RL) setting. Our model consists of two primary modules: the perception module, responsible for encoding observation data acquired from RGB-D cameras and performing tasks such as semantic segmentation, semantic depth cloud mapping (SDC), ego vehicle speed estimation, and traffic light state recognition. Subsequently, the control module decodes these features, incorporating additional data, including a rough simulator for static and dynamic environments, to anticipate waypoints within a latent feature space. Vehicular controls (e.g., steering, throttle, and brake) are obtained directly from measurement features and environmental states using the RL agent and are further refined by a PID algorithm that dynamically follows waypoints. The model undergoes rigorous evaluation and comparative analysis on the CARLA simulator across various scenarios, encompassing normal to adversarial conditions. Our code is available at https://github.com/pagand/e2etransfuser/ to facilitate future studies.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207