Assessing the Potential of the Strategic Formation of Urban Platoons for Shared Automated Vehicle Fleets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of studying the impacts of the strategic formation of platoons in automated mobility-on-demand (AMoD) systems in future cities. Forming platoons has the potential to improve traffic efficiency, resulting in reduced travel times and energy consumption. However, in the platoon formation phase, coordinating the vehicles at formation locations for forming a platoon may delay travelers. In order to assess these effects, an agent-based model has been developed to simulate an urban AMoD system in which vehicles travel between service points transporting passengers either forming or not forming platoons. A simulation study was performed on the road network of the city of The Hague, Netherlands, to assess the impact on traveling and energy usage by the strategic formation of platoons. Results show that forming platoons could save up to 9.6% of the system-wide energy consumption for the most efficient car model. However, this effect can vary significantly with the vehicle types and strategies used to form platoons. Findings suggest that, on average, forming platoons reduces the travel times for travelers even if they experience delays while waiting for a platoon to be formed. However, delays lead to longer travel times for the travelers with the platoon leaders, similar to what people experience while traveling in highly congested networks when platoon formation does not happen. Moreover, the platoon delay increases as the volume of AMoD requests decreases; in the case of an AMoD system serving only 20% of the commuter trips (by private cars in the case-study city), the average platoon delays experienced by these trips increase by 25%. We conclude that it is beneficial to form platoons to achieve energy and travel efficiency goals when the volume of AMoD requests is high.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".