Enhancing Autonomous Vehicle Decision-Making at Intersections in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic: A Comparative Study Using an Explainable Classifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to fully autonomous roadways will include a long period of mixed-autonomy traffic. Mixed-autonomy roadways pose a challenge for autonomous vehicles (AVs) which use conservative driving behaviours to safely negotiate complex scenarios. This can lead to congestion and collisions with human drivers who are accustomed to more confident driving styles. In this work, an explainable multi-variate time series classifier, Time Series Forest (TSF), is compared to two state-of-the-art models in a priority-taking classification task. Responses to left-turning hazards at signalized and stop-sign-controlled intersections were collected using a full-vehicle driving simulator. The dataset was comprised of a combination of AV sensor-collected and V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) transmitted features. Each scenario forced participants to either take ("go") or yield ("no go") priority at the intersection. TSF performed comparably for both the signalized and sign-controlled datasets, although all classifiers performed better on the signalized dataset. The inclusion of V2V data led to a slight increase in accuracy for all models and a substantial increase in the true positive rate of the stop-sign-controlled models. Additionally, incorporating the V2V data resulted in fewer chosen features, thereby decreasing the model complexity while maintaining accuracy. Including the selected features in an AV planning model is hypothesized to reduce the need for conservative AV driving behaviour without increasing the risk of collision.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".