How Do Vehicles Make Decisions during Implementation Period of Discretionary Lane Change? A Data-Driven Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate and compare the lane changing behavior of passenger cars and heavy vehicles during the implementation period (defined as the interval from the start time to the end time of a lane change maneuver), this study applies the gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) method to model the lane changing behavior of heavy vehicles and passenger cars, respectively. Results show that the lane change models vary with the vehicle types and lane change directions. Different factors are considered by the drivers of passenger cars and heavy vehicles when implementing lane changes to different directions. Partial dependence plots of GBDT models reveal that the influence of independent variables on lane changing behavior is nonlinear and complicated, which means that the same variable leads to various effects on the lane change decision across different vehicle types and lane change directions. In contrast with other state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can obtain more accurate results. The findings indicate that it is necessary to build specific lane change models based on vehicle types and lane change directions for microscopic traffic simulators and autonomous vehicles.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".