Safe, Efficient, and Comfortable Reinforcement-Learning-Based Car-Following for AVs with an Analytic Safety Guarantee and Dynamic Target Speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, there has been rising interest in automated driving systems and adaptive cruise control (ACC). Controllers based on reinforcement learning (RL) are particularly promising for autonomous driving, being able to optimize a combination of criteria such as efficiency, stability, and comfort. However, RL-based controllers typically offer no safety guarantees. In this paper, we propose SECRM (the Safe, Efficient, and Comfortable RL-based car-following Model) for autonomous car-following that balances traffic efficiency maximization and jerk minimization, subject to a hard analytic safety constraint on acceleration. The acceleration constraint is derived from the criterion that the follower vehicle must have sufficient headway to be able to avoid a crash if the leader vehicle brakes suddenly. We critique safety criteria based on the time-to-collision (TTC) threshold (commonly used for RL controllers), and confirm in simulator experiments that a representative previous TTC-threshold-based RL autonomous-vehicle controller may crash (in both training and testing). In contrast, we verify that our controller SECRM is safe, in training scenarios with a wide range of leader behaviors, and in both regular-driving and emergency-braking test scenarios. We find that SECRM compares favorably in efficiency, comfort, and speed-following to both classical (non-learned) car-following controllers (intelligent driver model, Shladover, Gipps) and a representative RL-based car-following controller.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".