2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Multi-scale Data Fusion and Machine Learning for
Vehicle Manoeuvre Classification
Arnab Barua Mobyen Uddin Ahmed
School of Innovation, Design and School of Innovation, Design and
2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET) | 979-8-3503-4089-1/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICSET59111.2023.10295109
Engineering
Mälardalen University Mälardalen University
Västerås, Sweden Västerås, Sweden
arnab.barua@mdu.se mobyen.uddin.ahmed@mdu.se
Abstract—Vehicle manoeuvre analysis is vital for road safety
as it helps understand driver behaviour, traffic flow, and road
conditions. However, classifying data from in-vehicle
acquisition systems or simulators for manoeuvre recognition is
complex, requiring data fusion and machine learning (ML)
algorithms. This paper proposes a hybrid approach that
combines multivariate multiscale entropy (MMSE) and one-
dimensional convolutional neural networks (1D-CNNs). MMSE
is utilised for early feature extraction and data fusion, and the
extracted features are classified using 1D-CNNs, achieving an
impressive 87% test accuracy in multiclass classification. This
paper provides insights into improving vehicle manoeuvre
classification using advanced ML techniques and data fusion
methods to handle complex data sets effectively. Ultimately, this
approach can enhance the understanding of driver behaviour,
inform policy decisions, and develop more effective strategies to
enhance road safety.
Keywords—Data Fusion, Data Extraction, Multivariate
Multiscale Entropy (MMSE), Vehicle Manoeuvre.
I. INTRODUCTION
Vehicular data contains valuable information from
sensors, telematics, video feeds, communication networks,
etc. It plays an essential role in understanding the
transportation system by analysing driver behaviour, road
conditions, and traffic management and enhancing road safety
measures [1],[2]. Telematics data, which includes GPS
coordinates, speed, acceleration, and track information, is
beneficial for detecting vehicle manoeuvres in different
scenarios [3]. However, researchers often struggle to process
telematics data due to its complexity and irregularity [4],
which is why statistical and ML techniques are necessary tools
in extracting and fusing information from vehicular data.
The multivariate multiscale entropy (MMSE) is a
statistical method used to assess the complexity of
multichannel observations with more degrees of freedom than
standard multiscale entropy (MSE) [5]. It can be applied to
process and uncover complex and nonlinear relationships
within vehicular telematics data. As it can work with
multivariate data, the process can also lead to a statistical
fusion approach. Fusion combines information from multiple
sources or modalities to provide a comprehensive and
enriched representation of underlying data [6], [7]. However,
in some cases, model-based fusion techniques like neural
networks and graphical models can struggle to effectively fuse
multivariate data due to issues such as complex model
selection, a lack of interpretable fusion, and high computation
complexity. Therefore, statistical methods like MMSE can
positively impact fusion by avoiding typical methods.
Integrating classification methods for vehicular data analysis
holds great promise. Deep learning (DL) based algorithms
now outperform traditional ones. Convolutional neural
979-8-3503-4089-1/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Shahina Begum
School of Innovation, Design and
Engineering Engineering
Mälardalen University
Västerås, Sweden
shahina.begum@mdu.se
network (CNN) is a popular DL-based algorithm used for
tasks such as image, text, and data classification and
recognition [8].
This research aims to classify vehicle manoeuvres data by
extracting and fusing information from telematics. However,
the usual approaches for handling vehicle telematics data do
not produce optimal outcomes. As a solution, advanced
techniques are employed here to analyse manoeuvres by
combining and extracting key features from telematics data
through statistical and machine learning methods. The MMSE
technique extracts and fuses features, while the 1D-CNN
algorithm predicts outcomes. The remainder of this paper is
organised as follows. Section 2 summarises works on
vehicular data, feature extraction, and fusion. Details of the
applied methodology are described in section 3. Section 4
presents the results with figures and discusses the performed
analysis. Finally, section 5 concludes this paper with a
summary.
II. RELATED WORKS
Modern vehicles generate large amounts of data from
various sources, such as vehicle diagnostics, telematics,
sensors, and infotainment systems. Researchers typically use
infotainment and sensor data, including cameras, lidars,
ultrasonic sensors, and multimedia content, to inform their
decision-making processes [9]. However, vehicular telematics
data is also a valuable source of information. Several articles,
including Articles [10] and [11], have highlighted the
importance of using telematics data for behaviour analysis and
road safety.
Vehicular telematics data can be used to identify vehicle
manoeuvres, but this task is not straightforward. There are two
common procedures for this: fixing thresholds on inertial
values [12], [13] and using rolling or sliding windows [14]-
[19]. The former involves establishing specific thresholds on
the inertial measurement to define the beginning and end of
the manoeuvres, while the latter involves splitting the data into
fixed-sized time windows and using a supervised ML model
to classify specific manoeuvres. However, both approaches
require fine-tuning and are inflexible to changes in the data
set. In [14], the sliding window technique was used to split
data and a stacked-LSTM model was used for classification.
Authors in [17] divided the data into parts using the rolling
window technique and performed classification on them. They
achieved good accuracy, but due to not using an adaptive
rolling window, they received average accuracy most of the
time. According to [14], the overlapping strategy has been
noted as a critical factor in achieving success. The article
referenced as [20] provides evidence that clustering within
rolling windows can negatively impact performance. In [3],
the Extended Motif Discovery algorithm was used for
296
 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia

clustering manoeuvre types, but it is ineffective in multivariate

time series data.
Researchers have used multiple approaches to extract
features from telematics data. One such method is using
ApEn, used in articles [21], [22], to calculate entropy values.
However, ApEn has a significant drawback of producing only
one entropy value for a whole signal. Another popular
approach is using a stacked autoencoder for feature extraction,
as used in articles [1], [23]. While autoencoder is primarily
used for image or sensor data, it is still a widely used approach.
This paper presents a research approach that differentiates
itself from related works by utilising only vehicular telematics
data to detect vehicle manoeuvres, similar to the method
proposed in [3]. The main difference is adopting unique data
selection, extraction, and fusion techniques for recognition.
Tradition threshold or rolling window technique is not used in
the data selection, as seen in [12]-[19]. Furthermore, in
contrast to other studies that use ApEn or other entropy
techniques for feature extraction, the authors use multivariate
multiscale entropy (MMSE). Unlike ApEn, MMSE can
process multiple time series data and generate multiple
Fig 2: Visual representation of the methodology flow.
entropy values, making it a more versatile approach to feature
extraction. In the paper, 1D-CNN is used for classification 1) Phase 1: A thorough analysis of telematics parameters
because it can handle the sequential nature of time series data. was conducted, resulting in the selection of 12 parameters
The usage of 1D-CNN for vehicle-related research can be based on their correlation values. This approach reduces
found in [24], [25]. ANN, SVM, and k-NN were also multicollinearity, improves model stability, and allows for
employed to compare the classification results.
the generalisation of unseen data. Parameters with values of
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS 0 and 1 were excluded as their inclusion can cause overfitting
of the algorithm. GPS was also not included in order to
A. Data Collection enhance the overall generalisability of the model. Table 1
In this study, data was collected from a simulator that captured provides a list of the selected parameters with their
vehicle telematics data from 19 subjects driving for 45 descriptions.
minutes. Due to different driving speeds, the number of laps
completed varied from 5 as the minimum to 16 as the TABLE I. LIST OF PARAMETERS WITH DESCRIPTION.
maximum. Figure 1 shows each lap's starting and ending
positions on the driving route. The collected data were Sl.
Name Description
No
segmented into three parts based on the type of movement: Steering Wheel The angle of the vehicle's steering wheel
simple turn (left or right), complex turn (left or right with 1
Angle and measured from -1 to 1.
frequent distance changes), and straight (forward or backward Acceleration Pedal Position of the acceleration pedal position
2
without turning). These segments were chosen as classes for Position and measured from 0 to 1.
manoeuvre recognition. The velocity of the vehicle and measured in
3 Vehicle Velocity
m/s.
Speed of the yaw in the Y axis and
4 Yaw Rate Ext Sns
measured in deg/s.
Angle of the pitch in X axis and measured
5 Pitch Ext Sns
in deg.
Speed of the pitch in the X axis and
6 Pitch Rate Ext Sns
measured in deg/s.
Velocity along the world's Y axis and
7 Vert Vel Ext Sns
measured in m/s.
Acceleration along the world's Y axis and
8 Vert Accel Ext Sns
measured in m/s2
Velocity along the vehicle's Z axis and
9 Speed Forward
measured in m/s.
Fig. 1: Vehicle driving route indicating the position of each segment and the Velocity along the vehicle's X axis and
10 Speed Lateral
start and end position of a lap. measured in m/s.
Acceleration Acceleration along the vehicle's Z axis and
11
B. Methods Forward measured in m/s2
Acceleration along the vehicle's X axis and
This research methodology consists of seven phases, 12 Acceleration Lateral
measured in m/s2
starting from raw data processing to classification. The flow
of the research work is illustrated in Figure 2, and specific
2) Phase 2: During the data preprocessing phase, the raw
tasks are performed in each phase.
data containing information on 12 parameters is organised
into classes based on movement types. These types include
simple turns, complex turns, and straight movements, as
defined in the data collection section 1. A program was

297
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia

developed to identify and split the raw data into these classes.
In the beginning, GPS data is manually observed to determine
the centre point of each turn, which is then inserted into a
program to identify all centre points in the raw data. The
distance between each centre point is then calculated to
determine simple and complex turns. A simple turn is
recognised if the distance between the centre point to the
previous and next centre points is above a certain threshold.
Five values are then selected from that centre point's
immediate left and right to construct the turn. More than two
centre points can be involved in a complex turn. For example,
if the distance between centres A and B is below the
threshold, they will construct a complex turn together. The
turn is built using the five values from the left side of centre
A, five values from the right side of centre B, and all values
in the middle of both centre points. This research considered
three centre points to build a complex turn based on distance.
After identifying simple and complex turns, the straight data
set was created using the remaining data.
In the 45-minute driving time, straight, simple, and
complex turns are found in various positions along the
trajectory. After identifying them, their frequency throughout
the 45 minutes is calculated and separated. Furthermore, the
sub-parts of straight and simple turns are marked serially for
better clarity in Figure 1. Based on Figure 2, during phase 5,
all samples are separated into bunches and undergo MMSE
to produce entropy values. Each bunch must contain at least
300 samples [5]. However, as the number of samples is low,
the up-sampling method is employed to increase the sample
size. During up-sampling, a certain number of random values
are generated between two samples. For example, if two
values are 2.5 and 3.4, a specific number of random values
are generated within the range of 2.5 to 3.4. Samples for each
instance of every activity were increased to 300 using this
approach. Table 2 displays the total number of samples
following the up-sampling process.
TABLE II. LIST OF CLASSES AND NUMBER OF SAMPLES AFTER UP-
SAMPLING.
Classes Sub-part Times of appearance Up-sampling
First 224
Second 223
Simple Turn Third 223
Fourth 222
Fifth 214
Complex Turn - 216
First 216
Second 216
Third 216
Fourth 216
Straight
Fifth 225
Sixth 204
Seventh 203
Eight 200
3) Phase 3: Grouopwise data preprocessing, that is, 12
parameters mentioned in Phase 2 were used to create five
distinct groups. The first step was to analyse the correlation
of each parameter. Based on their correlation score, the 12
parameters were divided into separate groups. For example,
parameters such as "vehicle velocity" and "forward speed"
were grouped together due to their high correlation where the
correlation value is 0.97. The distribution of each parameter
group is presented in Table 3. The same grouping process was
applied for each class.
TABLE III. DIFFERENCE GROUPS BASED ON PARAMETERS.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
1. Yaw Rate Ext Sns 1. Vehicle Velocity 1. Pitch Ext Sns
2. Speed Lateral 2. Speed Forward 2. Vert Accel Ext
3. Acceleration Lateral Sns
4. Steering Wheel
Angle
Group 4 Group 5
1. Pitch Rate Ext Sns 1. Acceleration
2. Vert Vel Ext Sns Forward
2. Acceleration Pedal
Position
4) Phase 4: During this phase, the MMSE is used to
calculate entropy values for each group separately. The
MMSE includes the development and evaluation of
multivariate sample entropy (MSampEn) over multiple time
scales to perform analysis [5]. The MSE, which is a univariate
method proposed by Costa et al. [26], is used to measure the
complexity of a single channel. In contrast, the MMSE
assesses the complexity of multichannel observations.
MMSE is performed in two steps where in the first step,
temporal scales are defined by averaging a -variate time
series , , = 1, 2, . . , over the non-coinciding time
segments of coarse granting, where is the number of
samples in each channel. In this way for scale , coarse
gained multivariate time series is achieved as , =
∑ , where 1 ≤ ≤ and the channel index is
= 1, … , . In the second step, each coarse-grained
multivariate is evaluated by MSampEn and then plot
MSampEn as a function of the scale factor . As per the
reference cited in the article [5], it has been established that a
minimum of 300 samples are required to estimate MSampEn
and a scale factor of eight is also taken into consideration in
this study. For further details regarding the computation and
algorithm of MMSE, refer to [5], [26]-[28].
67200 5) Phase 5 and 6: During phase 5, the entropy values are
66900 obtained by applying MMSE on the upsampled data of each
66900
66600 group. The upsampled data is split into 300-sample bunches
64200 according to class wise, which are then fed to MMSE. As
64800 there are eight scale factors, MMSE provides eight entropy
64800 values for each bunch. For instance, group one has all its
64800 classes' upsampled data, as shown in Table 2, with a total of
64800 905400 samples. Since group one has four parameters, the
64800
67500 dimension of the dataset is 905400×4. After the data is fed
61200 to MMSE, the final output is 3018×8, and this process is
60900 repeated for the remaining four groups. In phase 6, the values
60000
extracted from each group are combined to form a final
dataset. The dimensions of the aggregated dataset are
3018×40. A total of six datasets were prepared for
classification - five individual group-wise datasets and one
aggregated dataset of five groups. The averaged MMSE
features for each group in class-wise are displayed in Figure
3.

298
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia

Layer’s Output Shape Param

dropout_24 (Dropout) (None, 19, 64) 0

conv1d_13 (Conv1D) (None, 17, 32) 6176

max_pooling1d_13 (MaxPooling 1D) (None, 8, 32) 0

dropout_25 (Dropout) (None, 8, 32) 0

flatten_6 (Flatten) (None, 256) 0

(a) Group 1 (b) Group 2
dense_18 (Dense) (None, 64) 16448

dropout_26 (Droupot) (None, 64) 0

dense_19 (None, 16) 1040

dropout_27 (Droupot) (None, 16) 0

dense_20 (None, 3) 51
Total param: 23,971
Trainable params: 23,971
(c) Group 3 (d) Group 4 Non-trainable params: 0

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

(e) Group 5
Fig. 3: Figure of averaging MMSE values of five groups.
6) Phase 7: A CNN model is utilised for data
classification once the datasets have been prepared. The
outcomes are then compared to traditional ML algorithms
such as SVM, KNN, and ANN. CNN is a deep-learning
model frequently used in recognition tasks, and its
performance consistently outperforms traditional methods,
achieving state-of-the-art results [1]. This study employs a
simple customised 1D-CNN, a variation of CNN created for
one-dimensional sequential data processing such as time
series, DNA sequences, and audio. The architecture summary
is presented in Table 4, allowing readers to understand the
model's design and rationale without delving into intricate
details. It consists of two convolution and max-pooling
layers, four dropout layers, one flatten layer, two dense
hidden layers, and one output layer. The relu activation
function was used in convolution and hidden layers and the
softmax function was used at the output layer. The early
stopping technique is included with val_loss monitoring and
the patience value of ‘10’. Adam optimizer was used as the
default learning rate. The motivation behind choosing a
custom architecture instead of a renowned one like Lenet,
Alexnet, VGG, etc., is to address the unique characteristics of
the dataset, with the ultimate goal of achieving optimal
performance in a more focused and specific manner. For
more information about CNN and its architecture, please
refer to [1], [29].
TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF THE 1D-CNN.
Layer’s Output Shape
conv1d_12 (Conv1D) (None, 38, 64)
max_pooling1d_12 (MaxPooling 1D) (None, 19, 64)
A. Result
To classify the dataset, it was split into training, testing,
and validation sets. Of 3018 samples, 60% were used for
training, while 20% were designated for validation and
testing. Initially, 1D-CNN was used for classification, and its
results were compared with ANN, SVM, and k-NN. A simple
ANN model is used with two hidden layers, each with 64
neurons and a relu activation function. In the SVM parameter
setting, the RBF kernel function is used with a random state
of 42, and the probability is set to true. The parameter for k-
NN was set to use a value of ‘5’ for k and the Euclidean
distance function.
The classification was carried out for five groups, as well
as for a fused dataset comprised of these five groups. All
classification results are displayed in Table 5. From Table 5,
it is evident that 1D-CNN performed well in groups 2, 3, and
4, while ANN and SVM achieved high test accuracy in groups
1 and 5. However, the test accuracy results for the aggregated
dataset showed significant differences; 1D-CNN
outperformed the other methods, achieving 87.74% accuracy,
while the rest of the methods maintained test accuracy above
80%, except for k-NN. Figure 4 displays the training and
validation loss of 1D-CNN applied to the aggregated dataset.
During the training, 200 epochs were selected, but because of
using the early stopping technique, training stopped at 82
epochs. Based on Figure 4, the number of iterations for
convergence is approximately 50 epochs and about 61% of the
total training process is completed before early stopping is
implemented. This means that the model achieved
convergence in about 61% of the epochs it trained for before
early stopping was triggered. Figure 5 shows the confusion
matrix of the 1D-CNN model's test accuracy. Out of a total of
225 simple turns, 200 were predicted correctly, but 25 were
incorrectly predicted. Additionally, of the 49 complex turns,
all 43 were predicted correctly, but 5 were mistakenly
classified as straight. Finally, out of 330 straight samples, 287
were accurately predicted, but 43 were incorrectly predicted.
Table 6 presents the F1 scores on the aggregated group's test
data, where 1D-CNN scored better than others with a score of
Param
86.49. However, Table 5 shows that the accuracy of training,
256 validation, and testing for the five groups is low, indicating
0 that their F1 score will also be low. Therefore, the F1 scores
of those groups have not been included in the paper.

299
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia

TABLE V. CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY RESULTS(%). another. The data was then subjected to binary classification
Group Data Split 1D-CNN ANN SVM KNN using 1D-CNN, ANN, SVM, and k-NN. The results revealed
Train 77.45 77.01 75.52 81.49 that 1D-CNN performed the best with an 83% test accuracy,
Group 1 Validation 78.14 77.15 73.67 74.36 surpassing the other models. Figure 6 shows the roc curve,
Test 74.56 75.66 75.16 73.00 which clearly indicates that 1D-CNN outperformed all the
Train 74.30 75.52 72.32 78.23 other models.
Group 2 Validation 71.02 70.86 70.69 65.23
Test 71.02 70.86 67.21 67.88 TABLE VII. RESULT FROM DECISION FUSION.
Train 65.41 64.53 63.42 71.60
Group 3 Validation 63.41 62.41 58.72 53.29 Prediction 1D-CNN ANN SVM k-NN
Test 62.08 59.60 60.63 56.78 326 291
Train 66.13 63.86 62.54 72.43 Correct 357 331
Group 4 Validation 61.75 61.58 62.41 60.43 278 313
Incorrect 247 270
Test 63.57 61.42 62.25 58.44
Train 65.85 65.30 63.25 71.10
Group 5 Validation 63.57 64.56 57.45 57.11
Test 63.41 62.08 64.40 56.29
Train 89.77 89.97 85.58 79.88
Aggerate
Validation 86.92 85.63 80.46 68.04
d
Test 87.74 83.88 82.94 70.86

Fig. 6: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of four models based

on binary classification.

Fig. 4: 1D-CNN’s training and validation loss.
Fig. 5: Confusion matrix displaying the performance of 1D-CNN on the test
data.
TABLE VI. F1 SCORES OF THE AGGREGATED GROUP ON THE TEST
DATASET.
Group 1D-CNN ANN SVM k-NN
Aggregated 86.49 79.65 77.83 64.12
This study utilises the decision fusion method to analyse
test results obtained from multiple ML models. The process
involves combining the decisions made for each test sample
in five groups from a model and calculating the average by
dividing the sum by five. The average result of each sample is
then compared to the true label, and a vote is conducted. The
number of correctly identified test samples is determined by
the results of the vote. In Table 7, the result of decision fusion
is presented where 1D-CNN has more correct values than
others. To ensure the accuracy of the findings, the data set was
combined by merging samples of simple and complex turns
into one category, while straight turns were classified as
B. Discussion
This research aims to fuse data using MMSE and then
extract features from MMSE used for classification to
recognise vehicle manoeuvre. There are many ways to
perform fusion, like model agnostic and model-based. In the
model-based, researchers usually used kernel, graphical or
NN-based methods [6], [7]. This study utilised the MMSE, a
statistical method to merge multiple data sets and extract
noteworthy features. Extracted features get new
representation. Here, 12 parameters are grouped by
correlation, up-sampled, and then fed into MMSE for feature
extraction. Figure 3 presents the average of features of all
groups. From the figure, it is visible that the representation of
each group is different. Each group's classification result is
unsatisfactory, as presented in Table 5. The applied 1D-CNN
model achieved high accuracy for groups 2,3 and 4, but the
test accuracy score was below 80%. The accuracy of other
models tested is also below 80%. Based on the group-wise
classification results, it can be concluded that individual
classification is not recommended because each group have
less information which does not assist in increasing accuracy.
From Table 5, the classification result on the aggregated
dataset is good and except for k-NN, the test score of other
models stayed above 80%, whereas 1D-CNN has 87.74%
accuracy. This occurs because the aggregated dataset includes
data from all groups. After 82 epochs, the training of the 1D-
CNN model for the aggregated dataset was stopped using the
early stopping technique to prevent overfitting. The results
show that the model achieved convergence early in the
training process, and the early stopping mechanism prevented
overtraining by stopping the training process once the
validation performance plateaued. The confusion matrix of the
test accuracy using 1D-CNN is depicted in Figure 5, and from
the figure, simple and straight turns are mostly mismatched
with each other. Table 6 presents the F1 score of the
aggregated dataset's test accuracy. A high score for the 1D-
CNN model indicates that it can generalise well to completely

300
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2 October 2023, Shah Alam, Malaysia
new data. This suggests that the model can perform reliably in
real-world situations.
To compare the results of multiclass classification, binary
classification is also conducted. The aggregated data is
transformed so that two classes become one and then
classified with another class using the same methods as
before. The 1D-CNN method yielded the best results,
achieving an accuracy of 83%. To further analyse the data,
decision fusion was performed based on the model's decisions
of each group. Once again, 1D-CNN outperformed the other
methods, and the results can be found in Table 7. In addition,
end-to-end neural network (NN) approaches are utilised for
data fusion and extraction. Autoencoder and variation
autoencoder (VAE) models are used and then classified using
CNN. However, the extracted feature is often inadequate and
can result in overfitting during classification.
V. CONCLUSION
This article presents a new method for identifying three
types of vehicle manoeuvres using various telematics data.
The study analysed 12 telematics parameters and
preprocessed the data to distinguish between simple and
complex turns, as well as straight segments. MMSE was used
to extract multivariate features, which were then classified
individually and combined into a whole group. Various ML
algorithms were employed for the classification task,
including traditional methods like ANN, k-NN, SVM, and
1D-CNN. Experimental results showed that 1D-CNN was the
best method for binary and multi-class classification.
However, there is still room for improvement, such as
incorporating data from other domains and optimising
parameters. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the
potential of telematics data for manoeuvre recognition and
lays the foundation for future research in this area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the project FitDrive
(This project has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 953432).
REFERENCES
[1] K. Wang, J. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Liu, J. Xue, and H. Liu, "Naturalistic
Driving Scenario Recognition with Multimodal Data," in 2022 23rd
IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM),
2022: IEEE, pp. 476-481.
[2] M. D. Pesé, A. Ganesan, and K. G. Shin, "Carlab: Framework for
vehicular data collection and processing," in Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM International Workshop on Smart, Autonomous, and Connected
Vehicular Systems and Services, 2017, pp. 43-48.
[3] M. I. Silva and R. Henriques, "Finding manoeuvre motifs in vehicle
telematics," Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 138, p. 105467,
2020.
[4] H. Suda, M. Natsui, and T. Hanyu, "Systematic intrusion detection
technique for an in-vehicle network based on time-series feature
extraction," in 2018 IEEE 48th International Symposium on Multiple-
Valued Logic (ISMVL), 2018: IEEE, pp. 56-61.
[5] M. U. Ahmed and D. P. Mandic, "Multivariate multiscale entropy: A
tool for complexity analysis of multichannel data," Physical Review E,
vol. 84, no. 6, p. 061918, 2011.
[6] T. Baltrušaitis, C. Ahuja, and L.-P. Morency, "Multimodal machine
learning: A survey and taxonomy," IEEE transactions on pattern
analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 423-443, 2018.
[7] [A. Barua, M. U. Ahmed, and S. Begum, "A Systematic Literature
Review on Multimodal Machine Learning: Applications, Challenges,
Gaps and Future Directions," IEEE Access, 2023.
301
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malardalen University. Downloaded on March 28,2024 at 00:01:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[8] Z. Li, F. Liu, W. Yang, S. Peng, and J. Zhou, "A survey of
convolutional neural networks: analysis, applications, and prospects,"
IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 2021.
[9] Chahinez Ounoughi and Sadok Ben Yahia. Data fusion for its: A
systematic literature review. Information Fusion, 2022.
[10] I. Cassias and A. L. Kun, "Vehicle telematics: a literature review,"
Univ. New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, ECE. P, vol. 54, 2007.
[11] S. Kirushanth and B. Kabaso, "Telematics and road safety," in 2018
2nd International Conference on Telematics and Future Generation
Networks (TAFGEN), 2018: IEEE, pp. 103-108.
[12] D. A. Johnson and M. M. Trivedi, "Driving style recognition using a
smartphone as a sensor platform," in 2011 14th International IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2011: Ieee,
pp. 1609-1615.
[13] J. Paefgen, F. Kehr, Y. Zhai, and F. Michahelles, "Driving behavior
analysis with smartphones: insights from a controlled field study," in
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on mobile and
ubiquitous multimedia, 2012, pp. 1-8.
[14] K. Saleh, M. Hossny, and S. Nahavandi, "Driving behavior
classification based on sensor data fusion using LSTM recurrent neural
networks," in 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2017: IEEE, pp. 1-6.
[15] W. Weidner, F. W. Transchel, and R. Weidner, "Classification of scale-
sensitive telematic observables for riskindividual pricing," European
Actuarial Journal, vol. 6, pp. 3-24, 2016.
[16] Y. L. Murphey, R. Milton, and L. Kiliaris, "Driver's style classification
using jerk analysis," in 2009 IEEE workshop on computational
intelligence in vehicles and vehicular systems, 2009: IEEE, pp. 23-28.
[17] J. Xie, A. R. Hilal, and D. Kulić, "Driving maneuver classification: A
comparison of feature extraction methods," IEEE Sensors Journal, vol.
18, no. 12, pp. 4777-4784, 2017.
[18] G. Singh, D. Bansal, and S. Sofat, "A smartphone based technique to
monitor driving behavior using DTW and crowdsensing," Pervasive
and Mobile Computing, vol. 40, pp. 56-70, 2017.
[19] C. Woo and D. Kuli´c, "Manoeuvre segmentation using smartphone
sensors, " In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 572–
577. IEEE, 2016.
[20] E. Keogh and J. Lin, "Clustering of time-series subsequences is
meaningless: implications for previous and future research,"
Knowledge and information systems, vol. 8, pp. 154-177, 2005.
[21] Z. Li, L. Chen, J. Peng, and Y. Wu, "Automatic detection of driver
fatigue using driving operation information for transportation safety,"
Sensors, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 1212, 2017.
[22] C. Papadelis et al., "Monitoring sleepiness with on-board
electrophysiological recordings for preventing sleep-deprived traffic
accidents," Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 118, no. 9, pp. 1906-1922,
2007.
[23] M. Siami, M. Naderpour, and J. Lu, "A mobile telematics pattern
recognition framework for driving behavior extraction," IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, pp.
1459-1472, 2020.
[24] [1] A. Cura, H. Küçük, E. Ergen, and İ. B. Öksüzoğlu, "Driver
profiling using long short term memory (LSTM) and convolutional
neural network (CNN) methods," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6572-6582, 2020.
[25] [1] S. Mohine, B. S. Bansod, R. Bhalla, and A. Basra, "Acoustic
modality based hybrid deep 1D CNN-BiLSTM algorithm for moving
vehicle classification," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 16206-16216, 2022.
[26] M. Costa, A. L. Goldberger, and C.-K. Peng, "Multiscale entropy
analysis of complex physiologic time series," Physical review letters,
vol. 89, no. 6, p. 068102, 2002.
[27] M. U. Ahmed and D. P. Mandic, "Multivariate multiscale entropy
analysis," IEEE signal processing letters, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 91-94,
2011.
[28] W. Li, X. Shen, Y. Li, and Z. Chen, "Improved multivariate multiscale
sample entropy and its application in multi-channel data," Chaos: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 33, no. 6, 2023.
[29] Z. Li, F. Liu, W. Yang, S. Peng, and J. Zhou, "A survey of
convolutional neural networks: analysis, applications, and prospects,"
IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 2021