Distributed Cooperative Driving Strategy for Connected Automated Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections Based on Monte Carlo Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important goals of cooperative driving is to control connected automated vehicles (CAVs) passing through conflict areas safely and efficiently without traffic signals. As a typical application scenario, allocating right‐of‐way reasonably at unsignalized intersections can effectively avoid collisions and reduce traffic delays. Proposed here is a new cooperative driving strategy for CAVs at unsignalized intersections based on distributed Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS). A task‐area partition framework is also proposed to decompose the mission of cooperative driving into three main tasks: vehicle information sharing, passing order optimization, and trajectory control. Based on the schedule tree of the vehicle passing order, the root parallelization of MCTS combined with the majority voting rule is used to explore as many feasible passing orders (leaf nodes) as possible in a distributed way and find a nearly global‐optimal passing order within the limited planning time. The aim is for CAVs to perform proper trajectory adjustments based on the obtained passing order to minimize traffic delays while making the slightest acceleration adjustments. A coupled simulation platform integrating SUMO and Python is developed to construct the unsignalized intersection scenarios and generate the proposed distributed cooperative driving strategy. Comparative analysis with conventional driving strategies demonstrates that the proposed strategy significantly enhances efficiency, safety, comfort, and emission, aligning well with innovative and environmentally friendly urban mobility aspirations.
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".