Traffic Oscillations Mitigation in Vehicle Platoon Using a Car-Following Control Model for Connected and Autonomous Vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic oscillations often occur in road traffic, they make traffic flow unstable, unsafe and inefficient. Emerging connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) technologies are potential solutions to mitigating the traffic oscillations for the advantages that CAVs are controllable and cooperative. In order to study a control strategy and the effectiveness of CAVs in mitigating traffic oscillations and improving traffic flow and analyse the characteristics of homogeneous traffic flow made up of CAVs and heterogeneous traffic flow made up of CAVs and RVs when traffic oscillations appear in traffic flow. Firstly, the formation and propagation of traffic oscillations in a platoon of RVs are simulated and analysed. Then, a car-following control model is built to control the longitudinal motion of CAVs, and real-time information of preceding CAV is used in the model and this can make the motion of CAVs more cooperative. The model reflects an idea named “slow-in” and “fast-out,” and this idea is helpful to mitigate traffic oscillations. Then, numerical simulations of homogeneous traffic flow of a platoon of CAVs and simulations of heterogeneous traffic flow containing CAVs and RVs are conducted, and different penetration rates (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1) of CAVs are considered in the simulations of heterogeneous traffic flow. The characteristics and evolution of traffic flow are analysed and some indexes reflecting traffic efficiency and stability are calculated and analysed. Simulation results show that there are smaller velocity fluctuation, less stopping time and shorter length of road occupied when vehicle platoon contains CAVs (penetration rates are from 0.2 to 1) compared to the platoon containing only RVs (without CAVs). As for the heterogeneous traffic flow containing CAVs and RVs, these three indexes decrease with the increase of penetration rates (from 0.2 to 1) of CAVs. These results indicate that CAVs with the car-following control model in vehicle platoon are beneficial for mitigating traffic oscillations and improving traffic flow.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".