Uncertainty-Aware Decision Making and Planning for ICV Based on Asymmetric Driving Aggressiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precisely assessing driving threat of road segments could significantly enhance the driving efficiency of intelligent connected vehicles (ICV) within mixed traffic scenarios. Existing methods primarily concentrate on collision probabilities, resulting in an insufficient appraisal of asymmetrical hazard levels attributed to the various interactions. Meanwhile, the uncertainty and communication delay have great influence on ICV, and it is an issue that must be addressed when designing decision-making and planning model. Thus, this study proposes and formulates a new driving aggressiveness model after analyzing asymmetric interactions behaviors among vehicles with different types. Subsequently, aims to verify the capability of generating asymmetric interaction, the driving aggressiveness model is applied on lane-change decision-making and planning. Concretely, the aggressiveness-sensitive lanes-selection model is designed based on game theory, and the uncertainty-aware trajectory planning is developed by utilizing stochastic model predictive control (MPC) and the asymmetric driving aggressiveness. Finally, two naturalistic driving scenarios are utilized to verify the performance of the decision-making and planning model. The outcomes of simulations illustrate that the driving aggressiveness model introduces a novel perspective to assess the asymmetric driving threat. Meanwhile, the uncertainty-aware decision making and planning model can reduce the influence on interactive vehicles, and it has superior adaptability for dynamic and connected traffic environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".