Drive Risk Assessment Based on Game Theory Combinatorial Weighting—Unascertained Measure Theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The driving risk is assessed using the theory of unascertained measures to determine the presence of a conditional switch in the control system of a human‐machine codriving vehicle. Relevant risk indicators for driving are selected, including five driver‐related indicators and three vehicle‐related indicators. Subsequently, each indicator’s threshold range and associated risk level are analyzed and defined. The methodologies for establishing unascertained measure and their corresponding functions for both single and multiple indicator unascertained measure are then elucidated. A game theory–based weighting method is proposed, employing ordinal relationship analysis (ORA) and entropy weighting (EW) to determine indicator weights while utilizing confidence identification criteria to ascertain risk levels. Finally, experimental analyses are conducted on the driving risk assessment model, and the simulation results demonstrated the model’s ability to distinguish between normal and risky driving. In a continuous driving simulation, the model successfully identified a peak risk period (Level V) and, following a system alert, driving behavior returned to normal risk levels within 5 min. The model demonstrated utility for control switching decisions in human‐machine codriving scenarios, identifying instances where driver risk (Level IV) significantly exceeded vehicle risk (Level II), indicating a need to transfer control to the vehicle system. Consequently, the study’s findings can provide theoretical support for control switching mechanisms in human‐machine codriving vehicles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it