Longitudinal Dynamic versus Kinematic Models for Car-Following Control Using Deep Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of current studies on autonomous vehicle control via deep reinforcement learning (DRL) utilize point-mass kinematic models, neglecting vehicle dynamics which includes acceleration delay and acceleration command dynamics. The acceleration delay, which results from sensing and actuation delays, results in delayed execution of the control inputs. The acceleration command dynamics dictates that the actual vehicle acceleration does not rise up to the desired command acceleration instantaneously due to dynamics. In this work, we investigate the feasibility of applying DRL controllers trained using vehicle kinematic models to more realistic driving control with vehicle dynamics. We consider a particular longitudinal car-following control, i.e., Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), problem solved via DRL using a point-mass kinematic model. When such a controller is applied to car following with vehicle dynamics, we observe significantly degraded car-following performance. Therefore, we redesign the DRL framework to accommodate the acceleration delay and acceleration command dynamics by adding the delayed control inputs and the actual vehicle acceleration to the reinforcement learning environment state, respectively. The training results show that the redesigned DRL controller results in near-optimal control performance of car following with vehicle dynamics considered when compared with dynamic programming solutions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".