A Precrash Scenario Analysis Comparing Safety Performance across Autonomous Vehicle Driving Modes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precrash scenario analysis for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is critical for improving the safety of autonomous driving, yet the scenario differences between different driving modes are unexplored. Using the precrash scenario typology of the USDOT, this study classified 484 AV crash reports from the California DMV from 2018 to 2022, revealing the differences in the scenario proportions of the three modes of autonomous driving, driving takeover, and conventional driving in 34 types of scenarios. The results showed that there were significant differences in the proportion of six scenarios such as “Lead AV stopped” and “Lead AV decelerating” among different driving modes (p < 0.05). To analyze the relative risk of different driving modes in specific scenarios, an evaluation model of the risk level of AV precrash scenarios was established using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The findings indicated that autonomous driving has the highest risk rating and poses the greatest danger in Scenario 1, while conventional driving is associated with Scenario 2b, and driving takeover corresponds to Scenario 3, respectively. In‐depth analysis of the crash characteristics and causes of these three typical scenarios was conducted, and suggestions were made from the perspectives of autonomous driving system (ADS) and drivers to reduce the severity of crashes. This study compared precrash scenarios of AV by different driving modes, providing references for the optimization of ADS and the safety of human‐machine codriving.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".