Coordinated Maneuvering of Automated Vehicles in Platoons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To eventually have automated vehicles operate in platoons, it is necessary to study what information each vehicle must have and to whom it must communicate for safe and efficient maneuvering in all possible conditions. This paper formulates the problem in terms of sensing and communicated information. By emulating platoons using a group of mobile robots, the authors demonstrate the feasibility of maneuvers (such as entering, exiting, and recuperating from an accident) using different distributed coordination strategies. The coordination strategies studied range from no communication to unidirectional or bidirectional exchanges between vehicles and to fully centralized decision by the leading vehicle. One particularity of this paper is that instead of assuming that the platoon leader or all vehicles globally monitor what is going on, only the vehicles involved in a particular maneuver are concerned, distributing decisions locally among the platoon. This paper reports experimental trials using robots having limited and directional perception of other things, using vision and obstacle avoidance sensing. Results confirm the feasibility of the coordination strategies in different conditions and various uses of communicated information to compensate for sensing limitations
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".