2020 10th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE) 2020
DOI: 10.1109/iccke50421.2020.9303652
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intelligent Architecture for Car-following Behaviour Observing Lane-changer: Modeling and Control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that these plots, correspond to an aggressive driving with f = 0.7 derived from (3) (S P = 14 m, and S MP = 10 m). According to Table V the human-like fuzzy controller accounts for the lowest average error of 2.341 m overall tests, which is 79% lower than that of the controller without t sc , 81% lower than the controller designed based on the model in [4], 75% lower than the controller of [46], and 55% lower than the real driver.…”
Section: A Results Via Ngsim Datamentioning
confidence: 96%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…It should be noted that these plots, correspond to an aggressive driving with f = 0.7 derived from (3) (S P = 14 m, and S MP = 10 m). According to Table V the human-like fuzzy controller accounts for the lowest average error of 2.341 m overall tests, which is 79% lower than that of the controller without t sc , 81% lower than the controller designed based on the model in [4], 75% lower than the controller of [46], and 55% lower than the real driver.…”
Section: A Results Via Ngsim Datamentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Regarding the table, the FV velocity trajectories that were generated by the controller with t sc was 55% smoother than the controller without t sc , 37% smoother than the controller generated based on the model in [4], 27% smoother than the controller in [46], and finally 79% smoother than the real driver. Similarly, the acceleration variances listed in this table also states that the controller with t sc performs relatively better than the other controllers such that it is 20% smoother than the controller designed based on the model in [4], 6% smoother than the controller in [46], and 37% smoother than the real driver in terms of the acceleration variance. However, the acceleration variance for the controller without t sc is considerably lower than the other cases, which might seem to be good to some extent, but it may also lead to slow reaction and the conservative movement and consequently large relative longitudinal distance and traffic queue.…”
Section: A Results Via Ngsim Datamentioning
confidence: 98%
See 3 more Smart Citations