Knowledge Distillation Neural Network for Predicting Car-Following Behaviour of Human-Driven and Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we move towards a mixed-traffic scenario of Autonomous vehicles (AVs) and Human-driven vehicles (HDVs), understanding the car-following behaviour is important to improve traffic efficiency and road safety. Using a real-world trajectory dataset, this study uses descriptive and statistical analysis to investigate the car-following behaviours of three vehicle pairs: HDV-AV, AV-HDV and HDV-HDV in mixed traffic. The ANOVA test showed that car-following behaviours across different vehicle pairs are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). We also introduce a data-driven Knowledge Distillation Neural Network (KDNN) model for predicting car-following behaviour in terms of speed. The KDNN model demonstrates comparable predictive accuracy to its teacher network, a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, and outperforms both the standalone student network, a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), and traditional physics-based models like the Gipps model. Notably, the KDNN model better prevents collisions, measured by minimum Time-to-Collision (TTC), and operates with lower computational power, making it ideal for AVs or driving simulators requiring efficient computing.
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".