Traffic Flow Management of Autonomous Vehicles Using Platooning and Collision Avoidance Strategies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connected Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) promise innovative solutions for traffic flow management, especially for congestion mitigation. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication depends on wireless technology where vehicles can communicate with each other about obstacles and make cooperative strategies to avoid these obstacles. Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) also helps vehicles to make use of infrastructural components to navigate through different paths. This paper proposes an approach based on swarm intelligence for the formation and evolution of platoons to maintain traffic flow during congestion and collision avoidance practices using V2V and V2I communications. In this paper, we present a two level approach to improve traffic flow of AVs. At the first level, we reduce the congestion by forming platoons and study how platooning helps vehicles deal with congestion or obstacles in uncertain situations. We performed experiments based on different challenging scenarios during the platoon’s formation and evolution. At the second level, we incorporate a collision avoidance mechanism using V2V and V2I infrastructures. We used SUMO, Omnet++ with veins for simulations. The results show significant improvement in performance in maintaining 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it