Multi-mode Evasion Assistance Control Method for Intelligent Distributed-drive Electric Vehicle Considering Human Driver’s Reaction
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
Abstract Vehicle collision avoidance (CA) has been widely studied to improve road traffic safety. However, most evasion assistance control methods face challenges in effectively coordinating collision avoidance safety and human-machine interaction conflict. This paper introduces a novel multi-mode evasion assistance control (MEAC) method for intelligent distributed-drive electric vehicles. A reference safety area is established considering the vehicle safety and stability requirements, which serves as a guiding principle for evading obstacles. The proposed method includes two control modes: Shared-EAC (S-EAC) and Emergency-EAC (E-EAC). In S-EAC, an integrated human-machine authority allocation mechanism is designed to mitigate conflicts between human drivers and the control system during collision avoidance. The E-EAC mode is tailored for situations where the driver has no collision avoidance behavior and utilizes model predictive control to generate additional yaw moments for collision avoidance. Simulation and experimental results indicate that the proposed method reduces human-machine conflict and assists the driver in safe collision avoidance in the S-EAC mode under various driver conditions. In addition, it enhances the vehicle responsiveness and reduces the extent of emergency steering in the E-EAC mode while improving the safety and stability during the collision avoidance process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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