Stability Analysis of Heterogeneous Traffic Flow with Connected and Automated Vehicles: Joint Consideration of Communication Failures and Driver Takeover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a primary stage of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), the cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) system takes some outstanding advantages such as accurate perception and timely reaction, which benefit from vehicular communication, over human-driven vehicles (HDVs). However, these advantages will turn into stability risks in case of communication failures caused by malicious attacks. Thus, this study aims at analyzing the stability of heterogeneous traffic flow with communication failures. We model two types of communication failures: bogus messages and transmission delay, and introduce drivers’ takeovers to react to communication failures. As a result, heterogeneous traffic flow consists of normal CACC vehicles, CACC vehicles with communication failures, and HDVs. Then, a series of numerical analyses, including startup and braking analysis, incidents analysis, and density wave, are proposed to verify the theoretical models and demonstrate their major properties. Besides, a discussion on traffic capacity is presented to analyze the overall impact of communication failures on traffic flow characteristics. The findings can help to investigate the stability evolution of heterogeneous traffic flow and determine the appropriate traffic flow configuration under communication failures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".