Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

A Physics-informed End-to-End Occupancy Framework for Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an end-to-end occupancy network, trained to match artificial potential field maps, improves autonomous vehicle task completion, safety margins, planning smoothness, and speed compared with the rule-based APF planner.

desk verdict A network trained to regress APF occupancy maps can't claim to beat APF without a held-out split and a matched planner. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07855 v2 pith:KS7RKX6B submitted 2025-05-08 cs.RO

Shuqi Shen , Junjie Yang , Hongliang Lu , Hui Zhong , Qiming Zhang , Xinhu Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords occupancypredictionartificialpotentialfieldsphysics-informedlearningautonomousdrivingmotionplanningend-to-endLSTMsafetymetrics
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

This paper claims that a small end-to-end network can learn to turn a binary map of a driving scene into an occupancy map that encodes safety, and that this predicted map supports better motion planning than the rule-based artificial potential field (APF) method that was used to supervise it. The authors train a convolutional plus recurrent network to reproduce APF-generated ideal occupancy maps, so the network learns distance-based repulsion and attraction as part of its learned representation rather than as a post hoc correction. On 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios they report a higher task completion rate (0.946 vs 0.902), longer time-to-collision, larger headway, lower jerk, and an average execution time of 0.0019 seconds, about five times faster than the baseline. The paper's central proposal is that physical priors can be baked into the learning objective without sacrificing model flexibility or real-time operation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the APF-generated ideal occupancy map used as the regression target. Artificial potential fields define total potential $U(x)=U_{\text{att}}(x)+U_{\text{rep}}(x)$ with quadratic attraction toward the goal and inverse-distance repulsion within a threshold $d_0$ (Eqs. 6–8), and the normalized squared difference between the network's predicted map $\hat{O}_{i,j}$ and the ideal map $O^*_{i,j}$ is the training loss (Eq. 9). This single mechanism injects physical rules directly into learning: the network never sees the APF rule at inference time, yet its occupancy maps are shaped by distance-to-obstacle safety margins. The framework is presented as modular, so other physical priors could replace APF without changing the network architecture.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation on a held-out set of CommonRoad scenario IDs that are provably absent from training, and check whether the 0.946 versus 0.902 completion advantage and the TTC and headway gains persist; if the advantage disappears or reverses on unseen scenarios, the claim of generalization from physics-informed learning is falsified. A second, faster check is to inspect the training curves in Fig. 2 for a large gap between training and validation loss on the same scenario distribution, which would indicate memorization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an occupancy predictor trained by regression against APF-generated ideal maps inherits the physical plausibility of the potential field while keeping the adaptivity of a learned model. The network, built from residual convolutional layers followed by LSTM and GRU units, outputs a 36×9 occupancy map; training minimizes the mean squared error between its output and an ideal map computed from attractive and repulsive potentials (Eqs. 6–9). Because the ideal map assigns high cost near obstacles and low cost along safe corridors, the network learns spatial risk patterns rather than raw obstacle positions. The authors argue this makes predicted occupancy physically plausible and therefore usable for planning, and they support the claim with scenario visualizations and aggregate metrics: task completion 0.946 vs 0.902, TTC 2.979 s vs 2.798 s, jerk 1.361 vs 2.079 m/s³, headway 21.124 m vs 19.054 m, and execution time 0.0019 s vs 0.01 s.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume the 2,000 CommonRoad evaluation scenarios were not part of the network's training data, but the paper reports no train/test split; if the network saw those scenarios, its higher task-completion rate could reflect memorization rather than learned physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single lightweight forward pass can replace the classical reactive planner, since average planning time drops to 0.0019 seconds, leaving ample margin for replanning in dynamic scenes.
  • Predicted occupancy maps carry learned safety margins, reflected in longer time-to-collision and headway, without explicit collision checking at inference.
  • Network-produced potential fields are smoother and more adaptive than hand-designed APF fields, yielding lower jerk and therefore a more comfortable ride.
  • The physical-rule module is exchangeable, so substituting other rules for APF could adapt the same architecture to different safety constraints or task requirements.
  • The higher task completion rate across 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios suggests the learned representation generalizes across the diverse driving situations tested, supporting the case for deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the supervision signal is APF-generated, the network's safety behavior cannot exceed what APF's Euclidean-distance logic encodes; if a scenario needs context-dependent rules such as lane priority, blind spots, or agent intent, the current training targets would not teach them, and a testable extension is to train the same architecture on hand-annotated or learned risk
  • Editorial inference: The fivefold speed-up likely comes from replacing an iterative planner with one network forward pass, so a similarly fast planner could be obtained by distilling the same APF targets into any small network; the distinctive contribution is the distillation scheme and the learned smoothness, not the planner itself.
  • Editorial inference: A direct ablation, training the identical architecture against raw binary occupancy targets instead of APF targets, would isolate how much of the reported gains come from physics-informed supervision, but the paper does not report this comparison.
  • Editorial inference: The 36×9 output grid is coarse relative to real sensor ranges, and scaling the approach to larger maps with more agents may require structured sparsity or attention, which the current convolutional and recurrent design does not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an end-to-end occupancy prediction framework for autonomous vehicle motion planning. A convolutional-recurrent network takes a binary scene map as input and outputs an occupancy map of shape [B, 36, 9]. The training objective, Eq. (9), is an MSE loss that regresses the network output toward an 'ideal occupancy map' generated from an artificial potential field (APF) defined by Eqs. (6)-(8). The authors claim that embedding APF as a physics-informed constraint improves safety, smoothness, and efficiency, and they report experiments on 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios in which their method outperforms an APF/CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner baseline on task completion rate, TTC, jerk, headway, and execution time (Table I). The paper also provides qualitative comparisons of potential-field maps and two sample trajectories.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the framework would be a useful, modular way to combine a learned occupancy predictor with a fast planner, and the reported five-fold speedup would be practically interesting. The paper has some strengths: the network architecture is clearly described in Eqs. (1)-(5), the loss is explicit, and the evaluation is conducted on a standard benchmark (CommonRoad). However, the central claim is not established by the reported evidence. The training target is the APF-generated map, and the baseline is APF, so the comparison is between APF and a learned approximation of APF. Without a held-out train/test split, a matched planner description, and uncertainty quantification, the reported improvements over APF are uninterpretable. The contribution as stated, namely that physics-informed guidance during training leads to safer planning, is therefore not supported by the manuscript in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (9), and Table I] The training target O* in Eq. (9) is the APF-generated ideal occupancy map, and the only baseline in Table I is APF (or the CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner; see the next comment). A network trained to minimize this MSE can at best reproduce APF's occupancy field, so the reported gains in TTC, jerk, and headway are not explained by the stated mechanism. If the gains instead arise from imperfect regression, they contradict the claim that APF guidance is the cause. In addition, the paper does not report any train/test split for the 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios, so the improvements could also be an artifact of evaluating on scenarios used in training.
  2. [§IV.D and Table I] The baseline is called 'CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner' in the text but 'APF' in Table I, and the paper does not state how either planner consumes the predicted occupancy map to generate trajectories. Without a precise specification of the planning algorithm, the inputs, and the matching between the two methods, the metric differences cannot be attributed to the proposed occupancy prediction, and the experiments cannot be reproduced.
  3. [§IV.D, Table I] The reported metrics are single-point values with no standard deviations, no multiple seeds, and no statistical significance tests. The differences are moderate (e.g., TTC 2.798 s vs 2.979 s, task completion rate 0.902 vs 0.946), and with no uncertainty quantification the claimed improvements are not statistically grounded.
  4. [§III and §IV] The paper describes an occupancy-prediction network but never specifies the trajectory-generation or planning module that converts a predicted occupancy map into the trajectories used to compute TTC, jerk, headway, and completion rate. Since these quantities are properties of trajectories, the absence of a planning specification makes the experimental results unverifiable and prevents the reader from assessing whether the comparison is fair.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.A and Eq. (9)] The text says the loss is 'the sum of all elements in the difference' between the two maps, but Eq. (9) defines an average MSE over H*W cells; these two descriptions should be aligned.
  2. [§III.A, Eq. (5)] Equation (5), Z_t = GRU(LSTM(F3, h_{t-1}), h_t), is syntactically unclear because h_t appears as an input before it is computed; the state-update equations for the LSTM and GRU should be written explicitly.
  3. [§IV.A and Fig. 2] The x-axis of Fig. 2 is called 'epochs' in the caption but 'total number of training iterations' in the text; please use consistent terminology and specify the number of epochs and the dataset sizes.
  4. [§IV.C] The text says the model's trajectory is compared with 'the ground truth,' but Fig. 4 shows only predicted trajectories of APF and the proposed method; the ground-truth trajectory should be defined and plotted.
  5. [§III.B] The APF potential is a geometric heuristic, not a physical law of vehicle motion; calling it 'physics-informed' is misleading unless the potential is connected to vehicle dynamics or a physical safety constraint.
  6. [Table I and throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'Head-Way' in Table I, 'A Vs' and 'A V' spacing in the abstract and introduction, and 'face limitations' in §IV.C; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Evaluation is circular: the network is trained to regress APF-generated occupancy maps (Eq. 9) and then compared against APF itself, so the claimed gains over APF are uninterpretable.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section I ('use it as a baseline for comparison'); Section III.B, Eq. (9); Section IV.D and Table I]
    "To validate our framework, we incorporate the Artificial Potential Field (APF) method to provide physical guidance during learning and use it as a baseline for comparison. ... The ideal occupancy map is generated by incorporating these physical rules, and during learning process, the predicted occupancy map is compared against the ideal one. The network learns by minimizing the discrepancy: L = (1/HW) Σ (Ô_i,j − O*_i,j)^2 ... we conducted experiments on 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios and benchmarked it against the rule-based method (CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner)."

    The supervision target O* in Eq. (9) is the APF-generated ideal occupancy map, and the baseline in Table I is APF / CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner. Thus the network is fitted to reproduce the baseline's own occupancy output, and the evaluation is a comparison between APF and a learned regression of APF. If training converges, Ô ≈ O*, so the planner receives essentially the APF field and any advantage is not attributable to APF guidance. If Ô deviates from O*, the improvement comes from regression error or from an unspecified planner difference, not from the physics-informed constraint. The paper reports no train/test split, so the network may be recalling training scenarios rather than generalizing. The reported superiority is therefore forced or uninterpretable by construction.

full rationale

The central circularity is that the paper's physics-informed supervision is literally the output of the APF method, and the same APF method is used as the baseline. Section III.B defines the loss as the MSE between the predicted occupancy map and the APF-generated ideal occupancy map (Eq. 9), and Section IV.D benchmarks 'Ours' against the rule-based CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner / APF. This makes the comparison one between APF and a learned approximation of APF. The paper's own training-loss description confirms the network 'can accurately mimic the potential field maps generated by physical rules.' No held-out split is reported for the 2,000 CommonRoad scenarios, so the evaluation does not establish generalization. These issues do not require speculation about author intent; they follow directly from the paper's equations and table. There is no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem here, so the circularity is concentrated in the evaluation design rather than in the derivation of the network architecture. Score 6 reflects a partially circular central claim: the predicted occupancy map reduces to a fitted APF map, and the claimed planning improvement over APF is not supported by an independent comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the APF coefficients that generate the training targets, and the network weights. The central assumption is that APF maps are a valid ground truth for occupancy, which is not justified. The baseline ambiguity adds an additional unverified premise.

free parameters (4)
  • APF attractive scaling factor xi
    Appears in Eq. (7) and defines the ideal occupancy map used as training target; the value is not reported, so it may have been chosen by hand or tuned.
  • APF repulsive scaling factor eta
    Appears in Eq. (8) and shapes the repulsive potential; the value is not reported.
  • APF repulsion influence distance d0
    Appears in Eq. (8) and sets the range of repulsive influence; the value is not reported.
  • Network weights (convolution kernels, biases, LSTM/GRU parameters) = learned during training
    The network parameters are fitted by minimizing the MSE loss in Eq. (9) against APF-generated targets.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper APF-generated potential fields are a valid ground truth for occupancy map prediction.
    The loss function (Eq. 9) treats APF outputs as ideal occupancy values, but no evidence is given that potential fields correspond to physical occupancy probabilities.
  • domain assumption The 2000 CommonRoad scenarios and the 36x9 grid representation are sufficient for evaluating motion planning.
    The paper provides no details on scenario selection, grid resolution, or whether the grid size captures the relevant driving context.
  • ad hoc to paper The baseline used in Table I is equivalent to the APF method used in training.
    The text says the baseline is CommonRoad-Reactive-Planner, but Table I labels it 'APF'; the equivalence is assumed without explanation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Physics-informed End-to-End Occupancy Framework for Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KS7RKX6B

@misc{pith2026250507855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Physics-informed End-to-End Occupancy Framework for Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KS7RKX6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07855}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate and interpretable motion planning is essential for autonomous vehicles (AVs) navigating complex and uncertain environments. While recent end-to-end occupancy prediction methods have improved environmental understanding, they typically lack explicit physical constraints, limiting safety and generalization. In this paper, we propose a unified end-to-end framework that integrates verifiable physical rules into the occupancy learning process. Specifically, we embed artificial potential fields (APF) as physics-informed guidance during network training to ensure that predicted occupancy maps are both data-efficient and physically plausible. Our architecture combines convolutional and recurrent neural networks to capture spatial and temporal dependencies while preserving model flexibility. Experimental results demonstrate that our method improves task completion rate, safety margins, and planning efficiency across diverse driving scenarios, confirming its potential for reliable deployment in real-world AV systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework combines a physics constraint module and a prediction network. The constraint module generates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure illustrates the training and testing loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. This figure compares trajectory predictions of APF method and Ours in two complex traffic scenarios. The green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fail-safe motion planning of autonomous vehicles,

    S. Magdici and M. Althoff, “Fail-safe motion planning of autonomous vehicles,” in2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 452–458

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    A dynamic motion planning framework for autonomous driving in urban environments,

    Y . Jiang, X. Jin, Y . Xiong, and Z. Liu, “A dynamic motion planning framework for autonomous driving in urban environments,” in2020 39th Chinese Control Conference (CCC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 5429– 5435

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Occupancy grids: A stochastic spatial representation for active robot perception,

    A. Elfes, “Occupancy grids: A stochastic spatial representation for active robot perception,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.1098, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    From probabilistic occupancy grids to versatile collision avoidance using predictive collision detection,

    T. Genevois, L. Rummelhard, A. Spalanzani, and C. Laugier, “From probabilistic occupancy grids to versatile collision avoidance using predictive collision detection,” in2023 IEEE 26th International Con- ference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 79–85

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bayesian occupancy grid mapping via an exact inverse sensor model,

    E. Kaufman, T. Lee, Z. Ai, and I. S. Moskowitz, “Bayesian occupancy grid mapping via an exact inverse sensor model,” in2016 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 5709–5715

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Bayesian learning of occupancy grids,

    C. Robbiano, E. K. Chong, M. R. Azimi-Sadjadi, L. L. Scharf, and A. Pezeshki, “Bayesian learning of occupancy grids,”IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1073– 1084, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Transitional grid maps: Joint modeling of static and dynamic oc- cupancy,

    J. M. G. S ´ANCHEZ, L. Bruns, J. Tumova, P. Jensfelt, and M. T¨orngren, “Transitional grid maps: Joint modeling of static and dynamic oc- cupancy,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A random finite set approach for dynamic occu- pancy grid maps with real-time application,

    D. Nuss, S. Reuter, M. Thom, T. Yuan, G. Krehl, M. Maile, A. Gern, and K. Dietmayer, “A random finite set approach for dynamic occu- pancy grid maps with real-time application,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 841–866, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    A hybrid rule-based and data-driven approach to driver modeling through particle filtering,

    R. Bhattacharyya, S. Jung, L. A. Kruse, R. Senanayake, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “A hybrid rule-based and data-driven approach to driver modeling through particle filtering,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 13 055–13 068, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    A multi- task recurrent neural network for end-to-end dynamic occupancy grid mapping,

    M. Schreiber, V . Belagiannis, C. Gl ¨aser, and K. Dietmayer, “A multi- task recurrent neural network for end-to-end dynamic occupancy grid mapping,” in2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2022, pp. 315–322

    2022

  3. [11]

    Dynamic occupancy grid prediction for urban autonomous driving: A deep learning approach with fully automatic labeling,

    S. Hoermann, M. Bach, and K. Dietmayer, “Dynamic occupancy grid prediction for urban autonomous driving: A deep learning approach with fully automatic labeling,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 2056–2063

    2018

  4. [12]

    Traffic scene prediction via deep learning: Introduction of multi-channel occupancy grid map as a scene representation,

    H.-S. Jeon, D.-S. Kum, and W.-Y . Jeong, “Traffic scene prediction via deep learning: Introduction of multi-channel occupancy grid map as a scene representation,” in2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1496–1501

    2018

  5. [13]

    Mixnet: Physics constrained deep neural motion prediction for autonomous racing,

    P. Karle, F. T ¨or¨ok, M. Geisslinger, and M. Lienkamp, “Mixnet: Physics constrained deep neural motion prediction for autonomous racing,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 85 914–85 926, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Enhance planning with physics-informed safety controller for end-to-end autonomous driving,

    H. Zhou, H. Liu, H. Lu, J. Ma, and Y . Ji, “Enhance planning with physics-informed safety controller for end-to-end autonomous driving,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1775–1782

    2024

  7. [15]

    Robust environment perception based on occupancy grid maps for autonomous vehicle,

    N. Suganuma and T. Matsui, “Robust environment perception based on occupancy grid maps for autonomous vehicle,” inProceedings of SICE Annual Conference 2010. IEEE, 2010, pp. 2354–2357

    2010

  8. [16]

    Modern map inference methods for accurate and fast occupancy grid mapping on higher order factor graphs,

    V . Dhiman, A. Kundu, F. Dellaert, and J. J. Corso, “Modern map inference methods for accurate and fast occupancy grid mapping on higher order factor graphs,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2014, pp. 2037–2044

    2014

  9. [17]

    Semantic scene completion from a single depth image,

    S. Song, F. Yu, A. Zeng, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, and T. Funkhouser, “Semantic scene completion from a single depth image,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1746–1754

    2017

  10. [18]

    Ofmpnet: Deep end-to-end model for oc- cupancy and flow prediction in urban environment,

    Y . Murhij and D. Yudin, “Ofmpnet: Deep end-to-end model for oc- cupancy and flow prediction in urban environment,”Neurocomputing, vol. 586, p. 127649, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Physics- informed trajectory prediction for autonomous driving under missing observation,

    H. Liao, C. Wang, Z. Li, Y . Li, B. Wang, G. Li, and C. Xu, “Physics- informed trajectory prediction for autonomous driving under missing observation,”Available at SSRN 4809575, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Occupancy prediction-guided neural planner for autonomous driving,

    H. Liu, Z. Huang, and C. Lv, “Occupancy prediction-guided neural planner for autonomous driving,” in2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 4859–4865

    2023

  13. [21]

    Occupancy flow fields for motion forecasting in autonomous driving,

    R. Mahjourian, J. Kim, Y . Chai, M. Tan, B. Sapp, and D. Anguelov, “Occupancy flow fields for motion forecasting in autonomous driving,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5639–5646, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Road traffic safety assessment in self-driving vehicles based on time-to- collision with motion orientation,

    F. M. Ortiz, M. Sammarco, M. Detyniecki, and L. H. M. Costa, “Road traffic safety assessment in self-driving vehicles based on time-to- collision with motion orientation,”Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 191, p. 107172, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    A literature review of performance metrics of automated driving systems for on-road vehicles,

    M. N. Sharath and B. Mehran, “A literature review of performance metrics of automated driving systems for on-road vehicles,”Frontiers in Future Transportation, vol. 2, p. 759125, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jerk-minimized autonomous driving strategy with deep reinforcement learning

    J. Lee, C. Eom, D. Lee, and M. Kwon, “Jerk-minimized autonomous driving strategy with deep reinforcement learning.”

  17. [25]

    Reassess- ing desired time headway as a measure of car-following capability: Definition, quantification, and associated factors,

    S. Parashar, Z. Zheng, A. Rakotonirainy, and M. M. Haque, “Reassess- ing desired time headway as a measure of car-following capability: Definition, quantification, and associated factors,”Communications in Transportation Research, vol. 5, p. 100169, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.