Exploring the Stability and Capacity Characteristics of Mixed Traffic Flow with Autonomous and Human-Driven Vehicles considering Aggressive Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the popularization of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, mixed traffic flows that consist of AVs and human-driven vehicles (HDVs) will appear in the real world. Although many studies of the features of mixed traffic flow have been carefully evaluated, few studies have focused on the effect of aggressive driving performance on mixed traffic flow. This study aims to develop an approach to evaluate the effects of aggressive driving on the stability and capacity performance under the conditions of AV and HDV mixed traffic flow. First, since a car-following model can describe the relationship between vehicles, we calibrate a car-following model for aggressive driving and nonaggressive driving behaviors based on real traffic data and previous research results. Then, in a mixed traffic flow environment, a basic linear stability formula and capacity calculation expression are developed that consider the effects of vehicle order on the capacity. Finally, because the proportion of aggressive driving and aggressive driving parameters may change, nine combinations of three aggressive driving proportions and three driving parameter cases are used for the sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that the effect of aggressive driving on mixed traffic flow is complex. When the proportion of aggressive driving is less than 35%, the increase in the proportion of aggressive driving increases the traffic capacity and reduces the unstable part. However, when the proportion of aggressive driving is greater than 35%, the increase in the proportion of aggressive driving increases the unstable part. When the penetration rate of AVs exceeds 0.490, mixed traffic flow remains stable at all aggressive driving proportions. In addition, the capacity of a mixed traffic flow may be improved as the penetration rate of AVs increases. To a certain extent, these conclusions provide a theoretical basis for formulating different management modes of AVs and HDVs.
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".