MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000750821 · doi:10.1155/2020/6520861

A Car-Following Driver Model Capable of Retaining Naturalistic Driving Styles

2020· article· en· W3000750821 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Hu, Sheng Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsDriving cycleDriving simulatorAutomotive engineeringControl (management)SimulationEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial neural networkCar modelArtificial intelligenceElectric vehicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modeling of car-following behavior is an attractive research topic in traffic simulation and intelligent transportation. The driver plays an important role in car following but is ignored by most car-following models. This paper presents a novel car-following driver model, which can retain aspects of human driving styles. First, simulated car-following data are generated by using the speed control driver model and the real-world driving behavior data if the real-world car-following data are not available. Then, the car-following driver model is established by imitating human driving maneuver during real-world car following. This is accomplished by using a neural network-based learning control paradigm and car-following data. Finally, the FTP-72 driving cycle is borrowed as the speed profile of the leading vehicle for the model test. The driving style is quantitatively analyzed by A ESD . The results show that the proposed car-following driver model is capable of retaining the naturalistic driving styles while well accomplishing the car-following task with the error of relative distance mostly less than 5 meters for every driving styles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207