Merging control strategies of connected and autonomous vehicles at freeway on-ramps: a comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose On-ramp merging areas are typical bottlenecks in the freeway network since merging on-ramp vehicles may cause intensive disturbances on the mainline traffic flow and lead to various negative impacts on traffic efficiency and safety. The connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs), with their capabilities of real-time communication and precise motion control, hold a great potential to facilitate ramp merging operation through enhanced coordination strategies. This paper aims to present a comprehensive review of the existing ramp merging strategies leveraging CAVs, focusing on the latest trends and developments in the research field. Design/methodology/approach The review comprehensively covers 44 papers recently published in leading transportation journals. Based on the application context, control strategies are categorized into three categories: merging into sing-lane freeways with total CAVs, merging into sing-lane freeways with mixed traffic flows and merging into multilane freeways. Findings Relevant literature is reviewed regarding the required technologies, control decision level, applied methods and impacts on traffic performance. More importantly, the authors identify the existing research gaps and provide insightful discussions on the potential and promising directions for future research based on the review, which facilitates further advancement in this research topic. Originality/value Many strategies based on the communication and automation capabilities of CAVs have been developed over the past decades, devoted to facilitating the merging/lane-changing maneuvers at freeway on-ramps. Despite the significant progress made, an up-to-date review covering these latest developments is missing to the authors’ best knowledge. This paper conducts a thorough review of the cooperation/coordination strategies that facilitate freeway on-ramp merging using CAVs, focusing on the latest developments in this field. Based on the review, the authors identify the existing research gaps in CAV ramp merging and discuss the potential and promising future research directions to address the gaps.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".