Longitudinal Hierarchical Control of Autonomous Vehicle Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning and PID Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal control of autonomous vehicles (AVs) has long been a prominent subject and challenge. A hierarchical longitudinal control system that integrates deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG) and proportional–integral–derivative (PID) control algorithms was proposed in this paper to ensure safe and efficient vehicle operation. First, a hierarchical control structure was employed to devise the longitudinal control algorithm, utilizing a Carsim‐based model of the vehicle’s longitudinal dynamics. Subsequently, an upper controller algorithm was developed, combining DDPG and PID, wherein perceptual information such as leading vehicle speed and distance served as input state for the DDPG algorithm to determine PID parameters and output the desired acceleration of the vehicle. Following this, a lower controller was designed employing a PID‐based driving and braking switching strategy. The disparity between the desired and actual accelerations was fed into the PID, which calculated the control acceleration to enact the driving and braking switching strategy. Finally, the effectiveness of the designed control algorithm was validated through simulation scenarios using Carsim and Simulink. Results demonstrate that the longitudinal control method proposed herein adeptly manages vehicle speed and following distance, thus satisfying the safety requirements of AVs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".