A platoon formation algorithm for intersections with blue phase control in mixed traffic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing attention is being paid to intersection signal control with cooperative platoons. Assuming platoons being formed, such platoons cannot only improve the intersection capacity but also minimize the number of control units, especially when dedicated connected and automated vehicle (CAV) lanes are considered. However, the platoon formation process is often neglected, especially for lane-changing and overtaking maneuvers in mixed traffic. This may jeopardize the potential of signal control with platoons. This article proposes a platoon formation algorithm that computes the optimal lane, platoon sequence, and speed profiles of CAVs under the requirement of the central traffic controller. The algorithm is designed for mixed traffic conditions and hence the performance of human-driven vehicles is also considered. A mixed integer linear program model is formulated to minimize the deviation from the desired platoon configuration and the disturbance to overall traffic under any arbitrary initial condition. Numerical experiments are designed to test the effectiveness and the computational performance of the proposed algorithm. Results show that CAVs with signal control can form platoons with rational motion. Besides, the platoon penetration significantly affects platooning feasibility, while the platoon length does not. This suggests that CAVs can form long platoons at intersections to improve traffic throughput.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".