A Deep Time Delay Filter for Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) is a smart transportation solution to alleviate traffic congestion and enhance road safety. The performance of CACC systems can be remarkably affected by communication time delays, and traditional control methods often compromise control performance by adjusting control gains to maintain system stability. In this article, we present a study on the stability of a CACC system in the presence of time delays and highlight the tradeoff between control performance and tuning controller gains to address increasing delays. We propose a novel approach incorporating a neural network module called the deep time delay filter (DTDF) to overcome this limitation. The DTDF leverages the assumption that time delays primarily originate from the communication layer of the CACC network, which can be subject to adversarial delays of varying magnitudes. By considering time-delayed versions of the car states and predicting the present (un-delayed) states, the DTDF compensates for the effects of communication delays. The proposed approach combines classical control techniques with machine learning, offering a hybrid control system that excels in explainability and robustness to unknown parameters. We conduct comprehensive experiments using various deep learning architectures to train and evaluate the DTDF models. Our experiments utilize a robot platform consisting of MATLAB, Simulink, the Optitrack motion capture system, and the Qbot2e robots. Through these experiments, we demonstrate that when appropriately trained, our system can effectively mitigate the adverse effects of constant time delays and outperforms a traditional CACC baseline in control performance. This experimental comparison, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first of its kind in the context of a hybrid machine learning CACC system. We thoroughly explore initial conditions and range policy parameters to evaluate our system under various experimental scenarios. By providing detailed insights and experimental results, we aim to contribute to the advancement of CACC research and highlight the potential of hybrid machine learning approaches in improving the performance and reliability of CACC systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".