2022
DOI: 10.1109/tits.2021.3114983
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel Decision-Making Strategy for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles in Highway On-Ramp Merging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Tey generally concentrate on the decision details of each vehicle and accurately update its position and car-following gap distance at each discrete interval. Mainstream lane-changing models include the Cellular Automata Model [17,18], the Gipps model employing multiple factors [19,20], game theory models between target and infuenced vehicles [21,22], the MOBIL model based on safety-incentive dual criteria [23], and artifcial intelligence models represented by fuzzy logic and neural networks [24]. Additionally, some studies have incorporated more realistic factors, such as diferences in driving tendencies based on varying speed profles and the impact of roadway conditions [25,26].…”
Section: Lane Changing Models In Cav Environmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Tey generally concentrate on the decision details of each vehicle and accurately update its position and car-following gap distance at each discrete interval. Mainstream lane-changing models include the Cellular Automata Model [17,18], the Gipps model employing multiple factors [19,20], game theory models between target and infuenced vehicles [21,22], the MOBIL model based on safety-incentive dual criteria [23], and artifcial intelligence models represented by fuzzy logic and neural networks [24]. Additionally, some studies have incorporated more realistic factors, such as diferences in driving tendencies based on varying speed profles and the impact of roadway conditions [25,26].…”
Section: Lane Changing Models In Cav Environmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Te initial position sequences of the expansion MLC vehicles. , 143, 138, 133, 127, 120, 111, 105, 100, 94, 87, 81, 76, 70 1, 2, 4,5,7,9,11,15,17,18,21,22,23,24,27 …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kherroubi et al. [57] developed an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to predict the intentions of HDVs within the sensing range of the ego‐vehicle. This prediction further served as an input state to train a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) agent, which aims to learn a safe and cooperative merging strategy for CAVs.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The highlights of this simulation framework are: (i) the CAVs are optimally coordinated to minimize fuel consumption, and (ii) the interaction of CAVs with HDVs under different traffic demands is captured. Kherroubi et al [57] developed an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to predict the intentions of HDVs within the sensing range of the egovehicle. This prediction further served as an input state to train a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) agent, which aims to learn a safe and cooperative merging strategy for CAVs.…”
Section: Cav-based Merging Control In the Mixed Traffic Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For overtaking scenarios, a method based on artificial potential field method combined with formation control [22] and a cooperative avoidance scheme based on distance estimation strategy [23] are applied to keep vehicles safe. In addition, to deal with on-ramp coordination, artificial neural network (ANN) combined with Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) were proposed to calculate longitudinal acceleration [24], Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) and Control Lyapunov Functions (CLFs) were integrated to realize decentralized control [25] and the SAT (Satisfiability) solver [26] were tested with good results. However, most of the above methods are designed for specific traffic scenes and cannot be applied to generic multivehicle interaction environment.…”
Section: B Multi-vehicle Coordinated Motion Planningmentioning
confidence: 99%