Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) in Controlled and Real-World Environments: Testing and Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>ABSTRACT</title> <p>The transportation industry annually travels more than 6 times as many miles as passenger vehicles [<xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">1</xref>]. The fuel cost associated with this represents 38% of the total marginal operating cost for this industry [<xref rid="R8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>]. As a result, industry’s interest in applications of autonomy have grown. One application of this technology is Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) using Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC). Auburn University outfitted four class 8 vehicles, two Peterbilt 579’s and two M915’s, with a basic hardware suite, and software library to enable level 1 autonomy. These algorithms were tested in controlled environments, such as the American Center for Mobility (ACM), and on public roads, such as highway 280 in Alabama, and Interstates 275/696 in Michigan. This paper reviews the results of these real-world tests and discusses the anomalies and failures that occurred during testing.</p> <p><bold>Citation:</bold> Jacob Ward, Patrick Smith, Dan Pierce, David Bevly, Paul Richardson, Sridhar Lakshmanan, Athanasios Argyris, Brandon Smyth, Cristian Adam, Scott Heim “Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) in Controlled and Real-World Environments: Testing and Results”, In <italic>Proceedings of the Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium</italic> (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 13-15, 2019.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".