Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Energy Efficient Automated Driving as a GNEP: Vehicle-in-the-loop Experiments

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Connected vehicles that share their over-the-horizon plans can turn an interactive lane-change game into individual optimal-control problems, and a real vehicle running that scheme used 11.2 to 15.5 percent less fuel on average than a…

desk verdict A useful vehicle-in-the-loop fuel-saving result wrapped in an over-claimed GNE theory; the experiments deserve review, the equilibrium label does not. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14567 v1 pith:RZMUJ5QO submitted 2024-11-21 eess.SY cs.SY

Viranjan Bhattacharyya , Tyler Ard , Rongyao Wang , Ardalan Vahidi , Yunyi Jia , Jihun Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords generalizedNashequilibriumproblemconnectedautomatedvehiclesmodelpredictivecontrolV2Vintentionsharinglanechangeplanningvehicle-in-the-loopexperimentsmixed-integerquadraticprogramenergyefficientdriving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that vehicle-to-vehicle intention sharing converts a multi-agent lane-change motion planning problem, a generalized Nash equilibrium problem with coupled collision-avoidance constraints, into a set of independent optimal control problems, one per vehicle. That reduction makes distributed model predictive control possible, because each vehicle solves its own mixed-integer quadratic program against the shared trajectories of the others. The authors test the scheme in software-in-the-loop and then with one real vehicle embedded in a mixed-reality testbed, reporting 2.9 to 8.2 percent energy savings in software and up to 26.8 percent, with an 11.2 to 15.5 percent average, fuel savings in vehicle-in-the-loop tests relative to a baseline MPC that predicts other vehicles unilaterally. The stated physical mechanism is that accurate interactive predictions reduce braking and harsh corrective maneuvers during lane changes.

What carries the argument

The enabling mechanism is Lemma 1's reduction: given $x^*_{\neg v}$, the safe set $X_{\mathrm{safe}}(x^k_{\neg v})$ is fully determined over the horizon, so the coupled constraint (2c) becomes ordinary inequality constraints on the ego vehicle's own states and the game decouples into an optimal control problem per vehicle. The equilibrium check is the Nikaido-Isoda function, whose vanishing supremum characterizes a generalized Nash equilibrium; Theorem 1 uses it to argue that simultaneously solving the decoupled optimal control problems produces a generalized Nash equilibrium. The numerical machinery is a receding-horizon mixed-integer quadratic program with linear longitudinal and lateral models, a first-order powertrain lag, a second-order lateral response, integer lane commands, and big-M-encoded collision-avoidance logic implemented in the GNEP-MPC algorithm.

What would settle it

Run GNEP-MPC and the baseline in the same scenario while adding artificial delay or dropout to the V2V intention messages; if the energy savings disappear or reverse with realistic latency, the benefit depends on ideal communication. Separately, log the shared trajectories and check after each step whether each vehicle's plan is a best response to the others' final plans; if the joint state deviates from the mutual-best-response fixed point beyond tolerance, the open-loop generalized Nash equilibrium claim is not supported by the experiment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is formal: if the optimal future state trajectories of the interacting vehicles, $x^*_{\neg v}$, are available over the horizon, then each vehicle's dynamic generalized Nash equilibrium problem reduces to an ordinary optimal control problem, because the collision-avoidance safe set becomes a fixed set of constraints on the ego vehicle alone. Invoking the cited theorem that an optimal control solution for every agent is a generalized Nash equilibrium when costs depend only on own states, the paper concludes that the distributed MPC solutions are open-loop generalized Nash equilibria. The implemented planner is a mixed-integer quadratic program with an integer lane command, binary collision-avoidance variables, and receding-horizon execution; the experimental contribution is showing that these open-loop equilibrium-approximating plans outperform a strong baseline that predicts other traffic with an Intelligent Driver Model and chance constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each vehicle solves against the same fixed optimal state trajectories of the others over the whole horizon under the cited theorem's convexity and compactness assumptions; the implementation replaces that with a single receding-horizon solve per step against possibly stale intentions and an integer lane command, so the exact generalized Nash equilibrium claim is not what the hardware run verifies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Distributed planning becomes practical: each connected vehicle can compute its own plan locally as long as it receives the others' over-the-horizon trajectories, with no central coordinator.
  • Avoidance of an impeding vehicle no longer relies on guessing, and the reported fuel savings are physically tied to reduced braking and less frequent late lane changes.
  • The benefit appears in strong-interaction situations, where vehicles are close enough to affect each other's costs, and the game approach beats a unilateral-prediction baseline.
  • Receding-horizon execution of open-loop generalized Nash equilibrium plans is enough to improve closed-loop performance, even without claiming closed-loop convergence.
  • The mixed-reality vehicle-in-the-loop testbed can evaluate such planners with one real vehicle and simulated traffic, so the measured fuel savings reflect a real powertrain rather than a pure simulator.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Delayed, quantized, or missing intention messages would break the exact reduction in Lemma 1; a natural test is to vary communication latency or dropout and measure how quickly the energy savings degrade.
  • Because Algorithm 1 performs a single solve per vehicle per step against possibly stale intentions, convergence to the fixed point $x^*_{\neg v}$ is not established; running several best-response iterations per step and checking whether shared trajectories stabilize would test whether the generalized Nash equilibrium label is more than an approximation.
  • The formulation's costs depend only on own states, so the same Lemma 1 reduction should carry over to other interaction-intensive maneuvers such as merges, roundabouts, and intersection crossings; the empirical savings claims, however, are specific to the two-lane lane-change scenario tested.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper formulates multi-agent energy-efficient motion planning in interactive lane-change scenarios as a generalized Nash equilibrium problem (GNEP). It argues that when each agent receives the optimal intended future states of the other agents over the horizon via V2V communication, the dynamic GNEP reduces to an optimal control problem per agent, and that the resulting OCP solutions constitute a generalized Nash equilibrium. The method is implemented as a distributed mixed-integer quadratic program MPC (GNEP-MPC) and compared against a baseline MPC that predicts neighboring vehicles without V2V intentions. Experiments are conducted first in software-in-the-loop and then in vehicle-in-the-loop with a real Mazda CX-7 embedded in a mixed-reality environment. The reported results claim energy and travel-time improvements of GNEP-MPC over the baseline, including up to 26.8% fuel savings in vehicle-in-the-loop tests.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, the paper offers a useful experimental demonstration that V2V intention sharing can reduce energy consumption in interactive lane-change maneuvers. Its strengths are the realistic vehicle-in-the-loop setup, the comparison against a nontrivial prediction-based baseline, and the detailed description of the testbed and low-level control architecture. The theoretical contribution, however, is not established as stated: the proof that the OCP solutions form a GNE relies on a fixed-point condition that Algorithm 1 does not compute, and the theorem's convexity assumptions are not verified for the implemented MIQP. The empirical energy savings are plausible, but the paper currently presents the equilibrium mechanism as the cause without isolating it from the information advantage inherent in the comparison. The experimental reporting also lacks dispersion measures and treats one failed sub-scenario with post-hoc re-tuning. These issues are fixable within the paper's scope, but they are load-bearing for the central interpretation.

major comments (5)
  1. [II-A, Theorem 1 and Algorithm 1] The equilibrium claim is not justified by the algorithm actually implemented. Theorem 1 proves that if every agent solves its OCP with respect to the same fixed point x*_¬v of the other agents' optimal states, then the joint solution satisfies Definition 3. Algorithm 1, however, performs a single sequential loop over agents at each sampling step and solves each agent's MIQP against intentions broadcast in the previous iteration or against predict() at initialization. Nothing in this procedure guarantees that the resulting plans are mutual best responses to the same x*_¬v, so the statement in Section III-C that 'The MPC solutions are open loop GNE' is unsupported. I recommend either computing and reporting the Nikaido-Isoda residual of Definition 3 for the actual plans, or re-describing the algorithm as a heuristic one-step intention-sharing MPC whose equilibrium properties are not established.
  2. [II-A, Eqs. (5)-(12)] The invoked GNE theorem does not cover the implemented problem. Theorem 1 rests on hypotheses from [10] that include convex control sets and compact state sets. The implemented OCP is a mixed-integer quadratic program with an integer lane command u_l and binary collision-avoidance variables (Section II-A, Eq. (5a) and constraints (9)-(12)), so the feasible control set is nonconvex and generally noncompact. The paper does not verify that the theorem's regularity conditions are satisfied by this MIQP. At minimum, the authors should state why the integer program still satisfies the required assumptions, or explicitly restrict the theoretical claim to the convex relaxation / fixed-lane subproblem.
  3. [III-C and Table I] The headline energy and travel-time improvements are reported without dispersion. Table I says the averages are over 'three trials of each sub-scenario' but does not report standard deviations, per-trial values, or the number of trials for Table II, which appears to contain a single ViL run per sub-scenario. Figure 4 shows three runs for sub-scenario 1 in SiL, but no such detail is given for the other sub-scenarios. Without measures of variability, the percent improvements cannot be assessed for statistical robustness. The authors should add error bars or per-trial tables for both SiL and ViL experiments.
  4. [Table II and Section III-D.3] Sub-scenario 4 in the ViL experiments reports a negative result (-12.2% energy, -3.9% travel time) and the paper states that after re-tuning the planner and tracker parameters up to 4.7% improvement could be achieved. This is a post-hoc adjustment of the system on a failure case, and as reported it is difficult to interpret. The original run and the re-tuned run should be clearly separated, with the re-tuning reported as a sensitivity/exploratory analysis rather than as part of the main comparative claim. If the re-tuning also changes the baseline or the GNEP-MPC in later sub-scenario tests, that should be disclosed.
  5. [III-C and III-D.3] The comparison does not isolate the game-theoretic mechanism. GNEP-MPC receives exact intended future states of the other agents over the horizon via V2V (Algorithm 1), while the baseline receives only the unilateral prediction model of Section III-A. The reported energy savings could therefore be due primarily to the quality and availability of the intention information, rather than to solving a GNE. A more controlled comparison would provide the baseline with the same V2V intention data while still solving a non-cooperative OCP, or would compare GNEP-MPC against an MPC that receives the same predictions but does not use the game formulation. Otherwise, the claim that 'approaching (open-loop) GNE solutions' causes the savings is not supported by the experimental design.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II-A, Definition 2] The Nikaido-Isoda function is defined with a summation over agents but the notation drops the dependence of J_v on x_¬v and u_¬v. This makes the definition harder to parse; please make explicit that the minimization/deviations are over u_v only, with the other agents' controls held fixed.
  2. [III-B, Figure 3] The architecture figure lists the simulator, planner, and tracker components but does not identify which processes run on which machines and where the V2V communication channel is implemented. A sentence or a label in the figure clarifying the V2V data path would help reproducibility.
  3. [III-C, Figure 4] The text refers to an 'orange' cost curve in Figure 4, but the figure appears to be grayscale and has no legend describing which curve corresponds to which run. Please add a legend or use distinct line styles.
  4. [III-A, Eq. (17)] The fuel consumption model in Eq. (17) has a parameter p1 with units g s^2/m^2, but in the integral p1 u_t v dt the units appear inconsistent with a fuel mass rate. Please check the units or clarify the normalization.
  5. [III-D.3, Figure 10] The caption of Figure 10 says 'GNE approaching solutions reduce slow down behind the impeding vehicle by timely lane change.' This sentence is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten, e.g., 'solutions approaching a GNE reduce slowing down behind the impeding vehicle ...'.
  6. [III-C, initial conditions] The paper says the four sub-scenarios are 'permutations' of (17,14,11,8) m/s, but only four of the 24 possible permutations are listed. If these four were chosen for a reason (e.g., all are 'strong' scenarios), that selection criterion should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 1 is definitional: the 'optimal states' premise already contains the GNE, while Algorithm 1 never verifies the fixed point; the measured energy savings are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section II-A, Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 (equations (2)-(4))]
    "Lemma 1. If the optimal states of neighboring interacting agents over-the-horizon, x∗¬v, are available then dynamic GNEP (2) can be solved as an optimal control problem for v. ... Theorem 1. Solution of the OCP Gv(xv0, x∗¬v) ∀v is a solution (GNE) of the dynamic GNEP (2), Gv(xv0, x¬v)."

    The premise 'optimal states x∗¬v are available' already fixes the outcome of the game: those states are defined as the optimal (equilibrium) trajectories of the other agents. Solving each agent's OCP against those fixed trajectories and calling the joint profile a GNE is exactly Definition 3's mutual-best-response condition, so Theorem 1 restates the definition rather than deriving the equilibrium from V2V sharing. Algorithm 1 does not supply a verified x∗¬v: it sets x∗¬v ← xintent[¬v] (the previous broadcast plan) or predict(), and performs one sequential pass per step, so no fixed point is shown. The Section III-C claim 'The MPC solutions are open loop GNE' therefore imports the equilibrium property from an unverified premise.

full rationale

The paper has no fitted-parameter-as-prediction problem: the energy savings in Tables I and II are measured outcomes of a real/simulated closed-loop system, and the baseline is a heuristic predictor rather than a quantity derived from the GNEP-MPC inputs. The OCP-to-GNE step is also a standard result (Dreves & Gerdts [10], not a self-citation). The circularity is confined to the way the theoretical framing is presented: Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 assume the equilibrium states x∗¬v as a premise, which contains the conclusion by definition, and Algorithm 1 then labels its one-pass, stale-intention plans as 'open loop GNE' without verifying the fixed point. This makes the formal 'derivation' of the GNE label definitional rather than constructive. The experimental demonstration is self-contained against an external baseline, so the overall circularity burden is modest; the unverified Theorem-1 hypotheses (convexity/compactness with an integer lane command) are a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a cited equilibrium theorem, a simplified vehicle model, an idealized V2V channel, and numerous undisclosed tuning parameters; the least supported link is applying the convexity-based theorem to a mixed-integer formulation.

free parameters (6)
  • MPC cost weights q_1,k, q_2,k, q_3,k, q_4, and terminal weights
    Appear in cost (2a) and control the trade-off between speed tracking, acceleration, and lane tracking; values and tuning procedure not reported.
  • Lateral model constants K_l, omega_n, zeta
    Second-order damped lateral model (7); values not reported.
  • Powertrain lag tau
    First-order lag in (6); value not reported.
  • Slack penalties q_epsilon,p
    Augmented cost (5a); values not reported.
  • Baseline predictor constants a0, b0, IDM T, s0, delta = a0=1.15, b0=2.94, T=1, s0=4
    Used in baseline prediction model (13)-(14), from [27] and [24]; fixed values chosen for the experiments.
  • NMPC tracking weights Q, R, Q_T and slack penalties
    Low-level NMPC cost (18a); values not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 1 in [10]: OCP solutions form a GNE when control and state sets satisfy convexity and compactness
    Invoked without verifying that the MIQP with integer lane variables meets these conditions (Section II-A).
  • domain assumption Linearized decoupled vehicle model (8) adequately represents the real vehicle for planning
    The MPC planner uses this model; the real vehicle has nonlinear kinematics and coupling.
  • domain assumption V2V communication provides exact, synchronous, delay-free sharing of optimal trajectories
    Algorithm 1 uses x_intent[¬v] as the true optimal state trajectory at each step.
  • ad hoc to paper The scenario is 'strong' with d=[400,9,·,2,·] so the game is interactive
    Definition 4 and the test case selection assume agents are within the interaction compact set.
  • domain assumption Gurobi solves the MIQP to global optimality
    The planner relies on Gurobi branch-and-cut; no optimality gap is reported for the real-time solves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy Efficient Automated Driving as a GNEP: Vehicle-in-the-loop Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZMUJ5QO

@misc{pith2026241114567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy Efficient Automated Driving as a GNEP: Vehicle-in-the-loop Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZMUJ5QO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14567}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, a multi-agent motion planning problem is studied aiming to minimize energy consumption of connected automated vehicles (CAVs) in lane change scenarios. We model this interactive motion planning as a generalized Nash equilibrium problem and formalize how vehicle-to-vehicle intention sharing enables solution of the game between multiple CAVs as an optimal control problem for each agent, to arrive at a generalized Nash equilibrium. The method is implemented via model predictive control (MPC) and compared with an advanced baseline MPC which utilizes unilateral predictions of other agents' future states. A ROS-based in-the-loop testbed is developed: the method is first evaluated in software-in-the-loop and then vehicle-in-the-loop experiments are conducted. Experimental results demonstrate energy and travel time benefits of the presented method in interactive lane change maneuvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14567 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scenario illustration: Four CAVs communicate to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example construction of O¬v and subsequent activation of avoidance constraints (11) around an obstacle ¬v. In this example illustration, ¬v is longitudinally in line with ego v so λ¬v = 1 – and in front of ego so σ¬v f = 1 and σ¬v r = 0. Notably here, the set of logical constraints (11) and (12) form a special ordered set (SOS) which can be exploited when choosing branching rules to improve solution compu￾tation spe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture • The simulator handles the road geometry, localization of the vehicles and generates trafc (IDM driven impeding vehicle here) along with visualization. • The planner is the MIQP MPC which communicates with the low-level tracker for obtaining vehicle states and passing control commands. • The low-level tracker runs the control commands on a model of vehicle (see Appendix A). The communications are set … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Closed-loop cost comparison of baseline and GNEP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of position and velocity prole of ego ve￾hicle over three runs in sub-scenario 1. GNEP-MPC planning results in reduction of rapid lane change and braking. loop) trajectory owing to factors like MPC’s dynamics model mismatch, closed-loop GNE convergence cann…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Closed-loop (black) and V2V shared (colored) position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the experimental platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ViL trajectory comparison: the real vehicle (Mazda [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Lane change logic for low-level MPC reference selec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Lane change trajectory generation demonstration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ViL closed-loop cost comparison for sub-scenario 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    A generalized nash equilibrium approach for optimal control problems of autonomous cars,

    A. Dreves and M. Gerdts, “A generalized nash equilibrium approach for optimal control problems of autonomous cars,”Optimal Control Applications and Methods, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 326–342, 2018

    2018

  2. [1]

    Energy saving potentials of connected and automated vehicles,

    A. V ahidi and A. Sciarretta, “Energy saving potentials of connected and automated vehicles,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 95, pp. 822–843, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Control of connected and auto- mated vehicles: State of the art and future challenges,

    J. Guanetti, Y . Kim, and F. Borrelli, “Control of connected and auto- mated vehicles: State of the art and future challenges,”Annual reviews in control, vol. 45, pp. 18–40, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    US Connected Cars 2023

    Y . Wurmser, “US Connected Cars 2023.” https://www.emarketer.com/ content/us-connected-cars-2023, 2023. [Online; accessed 22-July-2023]

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Planning and decision- making for autonomous vehicles,

    W. Schwarting, J. Alonso-Mora, and D. Rus, “Planning and decision- making for autonomous vehicles,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 187–210, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Fundamentals of energy efcient driving for combustion engine and electric vehicles: An optimal control perspective,

    J. Han, A. V ahidi, and A. Sciarretta, “Fundamentals of energy efcient driving for combustion engine and electric vehicles: An optimal control perspective,”Automatica, vol. 103, pp. 558–572, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Conict management at urban bus stops through cooperative trajectory planning,

    J. Y u, Y . Liu, and W. Chen, “Conict management at urban bus stops through cooperative trajectory planning,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 165, p. 104696, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Smart driving of a vehicle using model predictive control for improving trafcow,

    M. A. S. Kamal, J.-i. Imura, T. Hayakawa, A. Ohata, and K. Aihara, “Smart driving of a vehicle using model predictive control for improving trafcow,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 878–888, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Leyton-Brown and Y

    K. Leyton-Brown and Y . Shoham,Essentials of game theory: A concise multidisciplinary introduction. Springer Nature, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    Generalized nash equilibrium problems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized nash equilibrium problems,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 177–211, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Multi-vehicle automated driving as a generalized mixed-integer potential game,

    F. Fabiani and S. Grammatico, “Multi-vehicle automated driving as a generalized mixed-integer potential game,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1064–1073, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Numerical solution of potential games arising in the control of cooperative automatic vehicles,

    A. Britzelmeier, A. Dreves, and M. Gerdts, “Numerical solution of potential games arising in the control of cooperative automatic vehicles,” in2019 Proceedings of the conference on control and its applications, pp. 38–45, SIAM, 2019. ENERGY GNEP 10

    2019

  5. [13]

    Decomposition algo- rithms for generalized potential games,

    F. Facchinei, V . Piccialli, and M. Sciandrone, “Decomposition algo- rithms for generalized potential games,”Computational Optimization and Applications, vol. 50, pp. 237–262, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,

    A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,”Automatica, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 407–427, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Autonomous lane-change controller,

    Y . Du, Y . Wang, and C.-Y . Chan, “Autonomous lane-change controller,” in2015 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp. 386–393, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Predictively coordinated vehicle accelera- tion and lane selection using mixed integer programming,

    R. A. Dollar and A. V ahidi, “Predictively coordinated vehicle accelera- tion and lane selection using mixed integer programming,” inDynamic Systems and Control Conference, vol. 51890, p. V001T09A006, Amer- ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Automated vehicle highway merging: Motion planning via adaptive interactive mixed-integer mpc,

    V . Bhattacharyya and A. V ahidi, “Automated vehicle highway merging: Motion planning via adaptive interactive mixed-integer mpc,” in2023 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1141–1146, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Multilane automated driving with optimal control and mixed-integer programming,

    R. A. Dollar and A. V ahidi, “Multilane automated driving with optimal control and mixed-integer programming,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2561–2574, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Algorithmic game theory,

    T. Roughgarden, “Algorithmic game theory,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 78–86, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    A sequential quadratic programming approach to the solution of open-loop generalized nash equilibria,

    E. L. Zhu and F. Borrelli, “A sequential quadratic programming approach to the solution of open-loop generalized nash equilibria,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3211–3217, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Algames: a fast aug- mented lagrangian solver for constrained dynamic games,

    S. Le Cleac’h, M. Schwager, and Z. Manchester, “Algames: a fast aug- mented lagrangian solver for constrained dynamic games,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 201–215, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Gurobi optimizer reference manual

    Gurobi Optimization, “Gurobi optimizer reference manual.” https:// www.gurobi.com/documentation/, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Mixed-integer programming for control,

    A. Richards and J. How, “Mixed-integer programming for control,” inProceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference, 2005., pp. 2676–2683 vol. 4, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on trafc capacity,

    A. Kesting, M. Treiber, and D. Helbing, “Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on trafc capacity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 368, no. 1928, pp. 4585–4605, 2010

    1928

  17. [25]

    Automated vehicles in hazardous merging trafc: A chance-constrained approach,

    R. A. Dollar and A. V ahidi, “Automated vehicles in hazardous merging trafc: A chance-constrained approach,”IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 218–223, 2019. 9th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control AAC 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Energy andow effects of optimal automated driving in mixed trafc: V ehicle-in-the-loop experimental results,

    T. Ard, L. Guo, R. A. Dollar, A. Fayazi, N. Goulet, Y . Jia, B. Ayalew, and A. V ahidi, “Energy andow effects of optimal automated driving in mixed trafc: V ehicle-in-the-loop experimental results,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 130, p. 103168, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Calibration and evaluation of car following models using real-world driving data,

    M. Pourabdollah, E. Bj ¨arkvik, F. F ¨urer, B. Lindenberg, and K. Burgdorf, “Calibration and evaluation of car following models using real-world driving data,” in2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 1–6, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Energy-efcient reactive and predictive connected cruise control,

    M. Shen, R. A. Dollar, T. G. Molnar, C. R. He, A. V ahidi, and G. Orosz, “Energy-efcient reactive and predictive connected cruise control,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 944–957, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    International Transportation Innovation Center

    “International Transportation Innovation Center.” https://itic-sc.com/,

  22. [30]

    An x-in-the-loop (xil) testing framework for validation of connected and autonomous vehicles,

    P . Gupta, R. Wang, T. Ard, J. Han, D. Karbowski, A. V ahidi, and Y . Jia, “An x-in-the-loop (xil) testing framework for validation of connected and autonomous vehicles,” in2023 IEEE International Automated V ehicle V alidation Conference (IA VVC), pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Kinematic and dynamic vehicle models for autonomous driving control design,

    J. Kong, M. Pfeiffer, G. Schildbach, and F. Borrelli, “Kinematic and dynamic vehicle models for autonomous driving control design,” in2015 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 1094–1099, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    ACADO Toolkit – An Open Source Framework for Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization,

    B. Houska, H. Ferreau, and M. Diehl, “ACADO Toolkit – An Open Source Framework for Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 298–312, 2011. Viranjan Bhattacharyyais a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical E...

    2011

  25. [2021]

    After graduation, he worked in Stellantis, North America as a simulation software developer for a year. Currently, he is pursuing Ph.D degree in Automotive Engineering at Clemson University, where his research includes mixed reality based val- idation development for human-veh...

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.