MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412091584 · doi:10.1155/atr/9991333

Customized Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning for Driving Behavior Modeling in Traffic Simulation

2025· article· en· W4412091584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhongyuan Zhu, Zhuoxuan Jiang, Xuefeng Zhang, Jifu Guo, Kai Xian, Tianyang Zhang, Jiawei Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityShanghai Municipal Education CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGenerative grammarImitationAdversarial systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerative adversarial networkHuman–computer interactionSimulationMachine learningDeep learningPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving behavior modeling is a crucial yet challenging task in the development of traffic simulation systems. Advances in machine learning and data‐driven vehicle trajectory extraction technologies have significantly advanced research in this area. However, the performance of such models can be affected by numerous factors often overlooked by the existing methods, including the complexity of real‐world road environments and driver characteristics. In this paper, we introduce a novel modeling approach, termed the customized generative adversarial imitation learning (Cus‐GAIL) method, designed to capture these complex factors. Our approach incorporates a conditional imitation learning technique that utilizes traffic’s prior knowledge to train a reinforcement learning (RL) model. In addition, we have innovatively developed a collision avoidance mechanism that markedly improves the reliability of microscopic traffic simulation. To address variations in driving styles, we have also created a driver classifier. Moreover, we propose a method for synthesizing small‐sample vehicle trajectory data to enhance the RL model’s ability to perceive rare data scenarios. By integrating these components, our model effectively encapsulates a wide range of external and internal factors. To validate the efficacy of the Cus‐GAIL method, we employ an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to monitor the two road segments and gather video data of actual vehicle trajectories. The experimental results demonstrate that the Cus‐GAIL method outperforms established baselines on both microscopic and macroscopic metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207