A Study of Mixed Platooning Considering Driver Perceptual Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human‐driven vehicles (HDVs) are the most critical element in mixed platoon research for their uncertainty. This paper presents a novel car‐following model that considers the driver’s perceived uncertainty. A mixed platoon model of HDVs and connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) is established. Through data analysis, the stability of this model is validated. Additionally, a meticulous comparison and analysis regarding the platoon convergence ability and stable state under various platoon grouping forms and running speeds are carried out. Further, this paper introduces a virtual spring strategy to describe the car‐following relationship between mixed platoon vehicles. Numerical simulations are then employed to explore the anti‐interference capabilities of different mixed platoon modes and lengths. The results indicate that CAVs can effectively attenuate the randomness of HDVs. The platoon formation and operating speed impact the stability of mixed vehicle platoons. The platooning configuration “1 + n + 1” as the smallest platooning unit can help mixed vehicle platoons achieve a better stable state more quickly, with the optimal platoon length being four vehicles. However, as the platoon combinations grow more complex, the optimal platooning unit tends to shorten.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".