Influence of Lane Policies on Freeway Traffic Mixed with Manual and Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) have become the highlights of traffic. Researchers in this field have proposed various traffic management measures to enhance the capacity and efficiency of traffic with CAVs, especially mixed traffic of CAVs and manual vehicles (MVs). Exclusive lane setting is included. However, exclusive lane policy-related researches for mixed traffic of CAVs and MVs were very limited, and the influence of number and location of exclusive lanes on the mixed traffic was unclear. To fill this gap, this paper aims to study the influence of different exclusive lane policies on mixed traffic and provide recommended lane policies under various traffic volumes and CAV penetration rates. Freeways with two lanes and three lanes in a single direction were taken into consideration, and sixteen lane policies were proposed. Then different lane policies were simulated with a new proposed cellular automata (CA) model, and properties including flux, average speed, and CAVs degradation were analyzed to evaluate the traffic efficiency of each lane policy. The results show that CAV exclusive lanes can improve the capacity, while MV exclusive lanes seem helpless for capacity improvement. Seven lane policies, including GC, GM, and CM for two-lane freeways and GCG, CGC, and CCM for three-lane freeways, outperform the others in terms of average speed. In addition, exclusive lanes can reduce the probability that CAVs degenerate to AVs. Our findings may help to optimize freeways’ lane policies and improve the efficiency of heterogeneous traffic mixed with CAVs and MVs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".