Combined Safety and Coordination of Connected Automated Vehicles in Merging Area with Featuring Optimal Merging Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeway on-ramp merging area is deemed to be typical bottlenecks section, which leads to low traffic efficiency, congestions, and frequent accidents. Most existing studies on merging for the connected and automated vehicles focus on merging at a single fixed merging point. However, the problem of coordination between merging vehicle and arterial traffic flow in the acceleration lane is ignored in the existing studies. This study proposes a merging model, which combined safety and coordination of CAVs with featuring optimal merging positions. The proposed model has two stages: one is analysis of merging velocity of the insertable gap and the other one is determining constraint condition of cooperative merging. The outputs of first stage are interval of merging speed and the mergeable range. The outputs of second stage are optional insertable gap and the corresponding driving scheme. Then, a traffic simulation experiment is designed to evaluate the proposed model. The simulation results show that the proposed model can effectively guarantee driving safety and make the merging process smoother with 28.7% reduction in travel time for the CAV merging. Furthermore, the proposed model does not sacrifice the interests of surrounding traffic to assist in CAV merging. The results indicate the promising potential of using the proposed methods can approximately get a fair use of road resources for each CAV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".