Coordination of Mixed Platoons and Eco-Driving Strategy for a Signal-Free Intersection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the collaborative control of vehicular traffic for a signal-free intersection. The traffic under consideration is mixed with connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) and human-piloted vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). The proposed collaborative control is of two levels. At the upper level, the objective is to minimize total delay via platoon control and dynamic priority control of conflicting movements. We formulate the platoon coordination of mixed traffic as a mixed-integer linear programming problem (MILP). This MILP determines whether adjacent vehicles will form a platoon and prioritize any two conflicting movements subject to lateral safety and rear-end safety constraints. At the lower level, we propose an eco-driving strategy to minimize the energy consumption by optimizing the speed profile of the platoon leading vehicles subject to the dynamic priority control from the upper level, i.e., the entry time to the merging zone. We deduce an analytical solution to the eco-driving problem using optimal control theory. Compared with existing benchmarks, such as the first-come-first-served policy, the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art controllers in reducing the total delay. Sensitivity analysis regarding the penetration rate of CAVs shows that substantial improvements can be achieved even at low to medium penetration rates of CAVs.
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".