CS2125 Paper Review Form - Winter 2019

Reviewer: Abdul Kawsar Tushar

Paper Title: Towards Cooperative Driving: Involving the Driver in an Autonomous Vehicle's Decision Making

Author(s): Marcel Walch, Tobias Sieber, Philipp Hock, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber

1) Is the paper technically correct?
 [X] Yes
 [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid)
 [ ] No

2) Originality
 [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work)
 [ ] Good 
 [X] Marginal (very incremental)
 [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new)

3) Technical Depth
 [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers)
 [ ] Good (comparable to typical conference papers)
 [X] Marginal depth
 [ ] Little or no depth

4) Impact/Significance
 [ ] Very significant
 [ ] Significant
 [X] Marginal significance.
 [ ] Little or no significance.

5) Presentation
 [ ] Very well written
 [X] Generally well written
 [ ] Readable
 [ ] Needs considerable work
 [ ] Unacceptably bad

6) Overall Rating
 [ ] Strong accept (award quality)
 [ ] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance)
 [X] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published)


7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale
   for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs)

This paper proposes a possible use of cooperative interfaces to smoothen the vehicle to driver handoff in autonomous vehicles. The authors expermient with visual and auditory outputs from the car to convey messages and have touch and auditory systems for taking input from the driver. 

One issue is that the simulation was performed only in a limited set of environments and a limited set of obstacles was presented. Another issue is the explanation of the results was not entirely clear.

8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper.  (1-2 sentences each,
identified as S1, S2, S3.)

S1. This was a novel approach to explore the interaction between the driver and the car.

S2. The paper used simple interfaces to communicate with the driver.

S3. The system had a visual fallback in case of mistrust on the auditory cues.


9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each,
identified as W1, W2, W3.)

W1. Self-reported measure of reliability was used by the drivers.

w2. How much time will remain for the driver to communicate with the car before someting happens?