Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Energy Consumption Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles via Positive Control Input Minimization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an uncalibrated objective — minimizing the time-integral of positive control input — makes the ECO+ framework the lowest-consumption eco-driving strategy among tested alternatives at intersections, for both electric…

desk verdict A clever convex surrogate with sound math, but the headline energy savings are likely inflated by comparing against baselines that omit the physical resistive-force constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04685 v1 pith:T53GGUBN submitted 2025-06-05 math.OC

Andreas Hadjigeorgiou , Stelios Timotheou This is my paper
classification math.OC MSC 90C2590C0590B20
keywords autonomousvehicleseco-drivingpositivecontrolinputconvexoptimizationlinearprogrammingfuelconsumptionenergyintersectionmanagement
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 tries to establish that a single, calibration-free surrogate — minimizing the time-integral of the positive part of the control input, i.e., the propulsive effort — is a better eco-driving objective for autonomous vehicles approaching intersections than commonly used objectives such as squared acceleration or kinetic energy. If true, a simple convex, ultimately linear program can replace expensive nonlinear solvers and heuristic strategies, cutting fuel and electric energy consumption in real time. The authors build the ECO+ framework around this surrogate, validate it on two empirical consumption models (the CPEM electric model and the KMMK fuel model), and benchmark it against several baselines including a nonlinear solver that directly optimizes the consumption models. Simulations show ECO+ achieving the lowest consumption for every tested travel time and scenario, with an average runtime of 0.09 seconds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PCI surrogate, defined as the integral of max(u(t),0) over the trip, where u(t) is the control input recovered from acceleration plus resistive deceleration. PCI is convex, which allows the authors to replace the nonconvex quadratic resistive-force constraint with an epigraph reformulation and then over-approximate the quadratic term d3 v² by piecewise affine segments, producing a linear program. This machinery converts an intractable optimal-control problem into a real-time solvable form whose minimizer, in simulation, matches the minimizer of the true empirical consumption models.

What would settle it

Run ECO+ and a squared-acceleration-minimizing baseline on an instrumented vehicle over the same 100 m approach, or evaluate both on a third validated consumption model not used in tuning (for example, a modal emission model). If the PCI trajectory does not achieve the lowest measured fuel or energy use for at least one feasible travel time, the surrogate's generality claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that positive control input — the integral of max(u(t),0), the part of the controller that actively propels the vehicle — is a sufficient and superior surrogate for both fuel and electric energy consumption in intersection-approach trajectories. ECO+ minimizes this surrogate subject to third-order vehicle dynamics, resistive forces, speed and control limits, comfort (jerk) bounds, and safety gaps. Against velocity-minimization, jerk-minimization, acceleration-minimization, DC programming, and a nonlinear solver directly optimizing the consumption models, ECO+ achieves the lowest consumption across all tested travel times and for both CPEM and KMMK, with relative gains up to 69.6% (CPEM versus velocity minimization) and 50.6% (KMMK versus DC programming) at the lowest terminal speed. A nonlinear solver initialized with ECO+ improves only 0.27% for the fuel model and fails to beat it for the electric model, which the authors read as evidence that ECO+ sits at a local, perhaps global, optimum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the positive control input integral is a faithful proxy for actual fuel and electric energy consumption across vehicle types and road conditions — a choice the authors reached through simulation testing rather than derivation from the physical consumption models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ECO+ achieves the lowest consumption across every tested travel time for both the CPEM electric and KMMK fuel models, with relative gains up to 69.6% and 50.6% respectively at vd = 6 m/s.
  • Its average runtime of 0.09 s, versus 0.27 s for DC programming and 2.7–746 s for the nonlinear solver, puts it in the real-time range for model predictive control in intersection management.
  • Initializing the nonlinear solver with ECO+ yields a marginal 0.27% improvement on the fuel model and none on the electric model, indicating ECO+ is effectively a standalone near-optimal strategy.
  • Under strict comfort constraints (jerk ±1 m/s³, acceleration ±1.25 m/s²) and with a leading vehicle, ECO+ still outperforms the velocity-minimization and DC baselines, though the margin narrows as the feasible set shrinks.
  • The piecewise affine approximation deviates by less than 0.4% from the exact quadratic formulation while speeding up computation by 36.9%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' validation is limited to a flat 100 m segment; the formulation includes road slope, so a natural extension is to test whether PCI keeps its edge on uphill and downhill corridors where negative control (braking) becomes energetically significant.
  • Because PCI has no calibration parameters, it could be dropped into existing MPC intersection controllers as a replacement for squared-acceleration objectives; the paper does not run that integration, so this remains an inference from the convexity and runtime results.
  • Real-world transients such as gear shifts, accessory loads, and battery thermal limits are absent from both consumption models; if those losses correlate with deceleration rather than positive input, PCI's measured gains could shrink under hardware-in-the-loop testing.
  • The 0.09 s average runtime suggests ECO+ could be re-solved in a receding-horizon loop at intersection-approach frequencies, but the paper presents open-loop optimization only, so closed-loop behavior under sensor noise remains an open test.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PCI (Positive Control Input), a surrogate objective that minimizes the integral of the positive part of the control input, and embeds it in ECO+, a convex discrete-time trajectory optimization framework for autonomous vehicles approaching an intersection. The continuous problem is discretized, the quadratic resistive-force equality is shown to be convex when d3 > 0, and a piecewise-affine (PWA) chord approximation is used to obtain a linear programming formulation. The method is validated against two empirical consumption models (CPEM for electric energy, KMMK for fuel) and compared with several baselines, including a nonlinear solver, across varying travel times, a leading-vehicle scenario, and strict comfort constraints. The paper claims ECO+ consistently achieves the lowest consumption with an average runtime of 0.09 s.

Significance. If the central empirical claim is correct, ECO+ would be a practically attractive eco-driving strategy: a simple convex/linear program with no calibration that runs in real time and outperforms established surrogates on both fuel and electric energy models. The convexification step (Section IV-B) is technically sound: with d3 > 0, the objective is the pointwise maximum of convex functions, and the PWA chord construction is a legitimate conservative over-approximation. However, the significance is conditional because the empirical comparison is undermined by (i) a mismatch between the continuous and discrete safety constraints, (ii) baselines that omit the resistive-force constraint and therefore solve a relaxed problem, and (iii) possible circularity in the selection of the PCI surrogate. These issues need to be resolved before the 'consistently outperforms' claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-D, Eq. (17n)] The discrete time-gap safety constraint (17n) uses the control inputs ui and uf_i instead of the velocities vi and vf_i that appear in the continuous constraint (6). The time-gap condition should be xf_i - xi ≥ (vi - vf_i) tg. As written, the constraint does not enforce a safe following distance based on relative velocity, and the leading-vehicle results in Section V-E (which set tg = 4 s) are not backed by the stated safety guarantee. The authors should correct Eq. (17n) and rerun the affected simulations.
  2. [V-C, V-D] Section V-D explicitly states that VM, AM, and JM are faster 'because they omit the nonlinear resistive-force constraint (17e)'. These baselines therefore solve a relaxed problem in which the planned acceleration need not satisfy a_i = u_i - (d1 + d2 v_i + d3 v_i^2). Consequently, their reported consumption and the claimed margins (e.g., 69.6% vs VM for CPEM at vd = 6, 50.6% vs DC for KMMK at vd = 6) are not an apples-to-apples comparison: the baselines are not charged for the positive control needed to overcome resistance, and their control inputs may violate (17h) under true dynamics. To support the central empirical claim, all baselines should be reformulated with the same resistive-force constraint (or a comparable PWA relaxation) and the comparisons rerun.
  3. [II-C] Section II-C justifies PCI by stating that 'through iterative testing and analysis, the formulation was refined to identify acceleration patterns that consistently yield lower energy consumption.' Since the same CPEM and KMMK models are subsequently used to validate ECO+ in Sections V-D to V-F, the surrogate selection and the validation share the same simulation testbed. This creates a risk of circularity: the reported gains may reflect model selection on the validation models rather than a general property of PCI. The paper should provide out-of-sample validation (e.g., a third consumption model, experimental data, or a derivation of PCI from the structure of the consumption models) or explicitly weaken the claim that PCI 'generalizes across different vehicle types without requiring calibration.'
  4. [IV-C, Eq. (22)] The PWA reformulation is not fully specified. The constraint 'ar_i ≤ y_k(vi)' is ambiguous because ar_i is not an independent variable in (21); if taken literally, imposing an upper bound on ar_i does not yield the claimed conservative over-approximation of the resistive force, and the final LP is never written out. The authors should state the exact linear constraints used in the LP (e.g., a_i + y_k(v_i) ≤ z_i for all k, or an equivalent formulation) and explain how the chord construction in Eq. (23) guarantees that the planned control input is an upper bound on the true required control.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [22] duplicates [17] (same Saboohi and Farzaneh paper) with a different volume number; please remove or correct the duplicate.
  2. [IV-C] The final LP formulation after the PWA approximation is not displayed; adding it would help readers verify the implementation.
  3. [IV-A] In Eq. (17), the objective sums over i∈I while the constraints (17g)-(17i) are over I+; the boundary condition u_H = 0 is imposed, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that u_i for i=H is included in the feasibility check.
  4. [V-D, Eq. (24)] Figure 6(a) shows negative net energy for CPEM at vd = 6; the relative difference metric (24) can become ill-conditioned when x and y have opposite signs, so the reported percentages in that regime should be interpreted with caution or supplemented with absolute differences.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

PCI surrogate was chosen by iterative simulation on the same consumption models later used for validation, so the 'consistently outperforms' claim is partly a selected result; the convex ECO+ derivation and NLS comparisons remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II-C (Objective, after Eq. 7), with the conclusion in Section VI]
    "The model is inspired by pulse-and-glide strategies widely discussed in the literature, as well as extensive simulation-based experimentation conducted by the authors. Through iterative testing and analysis, the formulation was refined to identify acceleration patterns that consistently yield lower energy consumption, ultimately motivating the decision to minimize positive control input directly."

    The paper presents PCI as a calibration-free surrogate and then validates it on the CPEM and KMMK models. However, the same models were the testbed used to choose PCI: the objective was reduced to minimize positive control input because iterative testing on those consumption models showed lower energy. The later claim that ECO+ 'consistently outperforms alternative methods in reducing both fuel and energy consumption' (Section VI) is therefore a re-statement of the criterion used to select the surrogate, rather than an independent confirmation. Section V-C compounds this by excluding alternative objectives after observing their inferior performance on the same benchmarks.

full rationale

The mathematical derivation of ECO+ is self-contained: the third-order model, resistive-force coupling, epigraph reformulation, and piecewise-affine over-approximation are all derived from the stated dynamics and do not assume the consumption models. The PWA accuracy check (Section V-B) and the NLS initialization experiment (Section V-D) provide independent evidence that ECO+ is near-optimal, and no load-bearing result is obtained by a self-citation chain. The main circularity is methodological: the PCI objective was selected by iterative simulation-based experimentation using the same CPEM and KMMK models on which it is later 'validated', as admitted in Section II-C; Section V-C also filters alternative objectives by performance on those benchmarks. This makes the headline outperformance claim partly a selected result, although it does not reduce Eq. (21) to Eq. (12) or (15) by construction. The benchmark-feasibility asymmetry noted in Section V-D (VM/JM/AM omit resistive-force constraint (17e)) is a correctness risk about fair comparison, not a circularity, because the reported numbers are not forced by the inputs. The conclusion's own limitation statement (no experimental validation) further reduces external support but is not circular. Overall: substantial independent content, with one important selection-on-the-test-set step; score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposed method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on two empirical consumption models from prior literature and a surrogate objective chosen by the authors; the main assumptions are the validity of the PCI surrogate and the discretization choices.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of piecewise-affine segments K = 5
    Chosen by hand as a trade-off between approximation accuracy and computational cost; the paper reports less than 0.4% error with K=5 for one scenario.
  • Discretization step Delta T = 0.1 s
    Chosen for Euler discretization; affects approximation of continuous dynamics and can influence the optimal trajectory.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing positive control input is a valid surrogate for minimizing fuel/energy consumption across vehicle types.
    Introduced in Section II-C based on iterative simulation experimentation, not derived from physical consumption models.
  • domain assumption Vehicle dynamics are adequately modeled by a third-order point-mass system with resistive forces ar = d1 + d2 v + d3 v^2.
    Standard lumped-parameter model stated in Section II-A.
  • domain assumption The CPEM and KMMK empirical models are representative of real electric and combustion vehicles for evaluation.
    Adopted in Section III from prior literature [48], [14].
  • domain assumption Euler forward discretization with Delta T = 0.1 s yields a sufficiently accurate approximation of the continuous-time optimal control problem.
    Used in Section IV-A; no convergence analysis or comparison with smaller steps is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy Consumption Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles via Positive Control Input Minimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T53GGUBN

@misc{pith2026250604685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy Consumption Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles via Positive Control Input Minimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T53GGUBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04685}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) present a unique opportunity to improve the sustainability of transportation systems by adopting eco-driving strategies that reduce energy consumption and emissions. This paper introduces a novel surrogate model for energy and fuel consumption that minimizes Positive Control Input (PCI). Unlike conventional objectives such as squared acceleration, which often misrepresent actual energy usage, PCI provides a more accurate and optimization-friendly alternative. Building on PCI, we propose ECO+, a convex, time-based trajectory optimization framework that ensures safety and passenger comfort while optimizing energy use for AVs approaching an intersection. To improve computational efficiency, quadratic resistive forces are approximated using piecewise affine segments, resulting in a linear programming formulation. ECO+ is validated using empirical fuel and electric energy models and benchmarked against established optimization strategies, including a state-of-the-art nonlinear solver. Simulation results demonstrate that ECO+ consistently outperforms baseline methods in reducing energy consumption, even under strict comfort constraints and in scenarios involving a leading vehicle. Moreover, initializing a nonlinear solver with ECO+ yields only marginal gains, indicating that ECO+ is effective as a standalone eco-driving strategy. These findings highlight ECO+ as a practical, scalable, and computationally efficient solution for enhancing the sustainability of autonomous urban mobility systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of an AV approaching an intersection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fuel and energy consumption rates for varying accel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PWA affine approximation for the Quadratic constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of objective values for varying time steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Execution time comparison for varying time steps with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fuel and energy consumption as functions of travel time for the proposed ECO+ method and benchmark strategies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Execution time as a function of travel time for VM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fuel and energy consumption as functions of travel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trajectory and velocity profiles of the preceding vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fuel and energy consumption of the ego vehicle as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Acceleration profiles of the VM, DC, and ECO+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fuel and energy consumption as a function of travel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Optimal control for connected and autonomous vehicles at signal-free intersections,

    B. Chen, X. Pan, S. A. Evangelou, and S. Timotheou, “Optimal control for connected and autonomous vehicles at signal-free intersections,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IF AC World Congress, Germany , July 2020, pp. 2831–2836

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Transportation,

    “Transportation,” European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Accessed 19 April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eceee.org/ policy-areas/transportation/

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    Green transportation for sustainability: Review of current barriers, strategies, and innovative technologies,

    K. J. Shah, S.-Y . Pan, I. Lee, H. Kim, Z. You, J.-M. Zheng, and P.- C. Chiang, “Green transportation for sustainability: Review of current barriers, strategies, and innovative technologies,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 326, p. 129392, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Optimal control based eco-driving,

    B. Saerens, “Optimal control based eco-driving,” Theoretical Approach and Practical Applications. Heverlee: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven , 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Training urban bus drivers to promote smart driving: A note on a greek eco-driving pilot program,

    M. Zarkadoula, G. Zoidis, and E. Tritopoulou, “Training urban bus drivers to promote smart driving: A note on a greek eco-driving pilot program,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 449–451, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    Eco-routing navigation system based on multisource historical and real-time traffic information,

    K. Boriboonsomsin, M. J. Barth, W. Zhu, and A. Vu, “Eco-routing navigation system based on multisource historical and real-time traffic information,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1694–1704, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    Energy and emissions impacts of a freeway-based dynamic eco-driving system,

    M. Barth and K. Boriboonsomsin, “Energy and emissions impacts of a freeway-based dynamic eco-driving system,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 400–410, 2009, the interaction of environmental and traffic safety policies

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Evaluation of the driving performance and user acceptance of a predic- tive eco-driving assistance system for electric vehicles,

    S. K. Chada, D. G ¨orges, A. Ebert, R. Teutsch, and S. P. Subramanya, “Evaluation of the driving performance and user acceptance of a predic- tive eco-driving assistance system for electric vehicles,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 153, p. 104193, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    User acceptance evaluation approach of energy efficient driver assistance systems,

    P. Seewald, J. Josten, A. Zlocki, and L. Eckstein, “User acceptance evaluation approach of energy efficient driver assistance systems,” in Proceedings of the 9th ITS European Congress , 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    A review of vehicle fuel consump- tion models to evaluate eco-driving and eco-routing,

    M. Zhou, H. Jin, and W. Wang, “A review of vehicle fuel consump- tion models to evaluate eco-driving and eco-routing,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , vol. 49, pp. 203–218, 2016

    2016

  3. [10]

    Coordination of cooperative autonomous vehicles: Toward safer and more efficient road transportation,

    R. Hult, G. R. Campos, E. Steinmetz, L. Hammarstrand, P. Falcone, and H. Wymeersch, “Coordination of cooperative autonomous vehicles: Toward safer and more efficient road transportation,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 74–84, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Adaptive cruise control look- ahead system for energy management of vehicles,

    H. Khayyam, S. Nahavandi, and S. Davis, “Adaptive cruise control look- ahead system for energy management of vehicles,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 3874–3885, 2012

    2012

  5. [12]

    Optimal ecodriving control: Energy-efficient driving of road vehicles as an optimal control problem,

    A. Sciarretta, G. De Nunzio, and L. L. Ojeda, “Optimal ecodriving control: Energy-efficient driving of road vehicles as an optimal control problem,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 71–90, 2015

    2015

  6. [13]

    An adaptive cruise control for connected energy-saving electric vehicles,

    L. Bertoni, J. Guanetti, M. Basso, M. Masoero, S. Cetinkunt, and F. Borrelli, “An adaptive cruise control for connected energy-saving electric vehicles,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 2359–2364, 2017

    2017

  7. [14]

    Ecological vehicle control on roads with up-down slopes,

    M. A. S. Kamal, M. Mukai, J. Murata, and T. Kawabe, “Ecological vehicle control on roads with up-down slopes,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 783–794, 2011

    2011

  8. [15]

    Cooperative look-ahead control for fuel-efficient and safe heavy-duty vehicle platooning,

    V . Turri, B. Besselink, and K. H. Johansson, “Cooperative look-ahead control for fuel-efficient and safe heavy-duty vehicle platooning,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 12–28, 2016

    2016

  9. [16]

    Fuel-efficient and safe heavy-duty vehicle platooning through look-ahead control,

    V . Turri, “Fuel-efficient and safe heavy-duty vehicle platooning through look-ahead control,” Ph.D. dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Tech- nology, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Energy savings from an eco-cooperative adaptive cruise control: A BEV platoon investigation,

    D. R. Lopes and S. Evangelou, “Energy savings from an eco-cooperative adaptive cruise control: A BEV platoon investigation,” in Proceedings of the 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), Napoli, Italy, June 25-28, 2019, pp. 4160–4167

    2019

  11. [19]

    A platoon based cooperative eco-driving model for mixed automated and human-driven vehicles at a signalised intersection,

    W. Zhao, D. Ngoduy, S. Shepherd, R. Liu, and M. Papageorgiou, “A platoon based cooperative eco-driving model for mixed automated and human-driven vehicles at a signalised intersection,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 95, pp. 802–821, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Energy management strategies for vehicular electric power systems,

    M. Koot, J. T. Kessels, B. De Jager, W. Heemels, P. Van den Bosch, and M. Steinbuch, “Energy management strategies for vehicular electric power systems,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 771–782, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    Optimal control of parallel hybrid electric vehicles,

    A. Sciarretta, M. Back, and L. Guzzella, “Optimal control of parallel hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Tech- nology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 352–363, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Model for developing an eco-driving strategy of a passenger vehicle based on the least fuel consumption,

    Y . Saboohi and H. Farzaneh, “Model for developing an eco-driving strategy of a passenger vehicle based on the least fuel consumption,” Applied Energy, vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 1925–1932, 2009

    1925

  15. [23]

    A scoping review of energy-efficient driving behaviors and applied state-of-the-art AI methods,

    Z. Ma, B. N. Jørgensen, and Z. Ma, “A scoping review of energy-efficient driving behaviors and applied state-of-the-art AI methods,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Intelligent hybrid vehicle power control—Part I: Machine learning of optimal vehicle power,

    Y . L. Murphey, J. Park, Z. Chen, M. L. Kuang, M. A. Masrur, and A. M. Phillips, “Intelligent hybrid vehicle power control—Part I: Machine learning of optimal vehicle power,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3519–3530, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Vehicle inertia impact on fuel consumption of conventional and hybrid electric vehicles using acceleration and coast driving strategy,

    J. Lee, “Vehicle inertia impact on fuel consumption of conventional and hybrid electric vehicles using acceleration and coast driving strategy,” Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Tech, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Fuel-optimal cruising strategy for road vehicles with step-gear mechanical transmission,

    S. Xu, S. E. Li, X. Zhang, B. Cheng, and H. Peng, “Fuel-optimal cruising strategy for road vehicles with step-gear mechanical transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 3496–3507, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Mechanism of vehicular periodic operation for optimal fuel economy in free-driving scenarios,

    S. E. Li, X. Hu, K. Li, and C. Ahn, “Mechanism of vehicular periodic operation for optimal fuel economy in free-driving scenarios,” IET Intelligent Transport Systems , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 306–313, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Pulse-and-glide operations for hy- brid electric vehicles in the car-following scenario,

    S.-Y . Shieh, T. Ersal, and H. Peng, “Pulse-and-glide operations for hy- brid electric vehicles in the car-following scenario,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 9922–9937, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Effect of pulse-and-glide strategy on traffic flow for a platoon of mixed automated and manually driven vehicles,

    S. E. Li, K. Deng, Y . Zheng, and H. Peng, “Effect of pulse-and-glide strategy on traffic flow for a platoon of mixed automated and manually driven vehicles,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering , vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 892–905, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    An analysis of the tradeoff between fuel consumption and ride comfort for the pulse and glide driving strategy,

    C. Sohn, J. Andert, and D. Jolovic, “An analysis of the tradeoff between fuel consumption and ride comfort for the pulse and glide driving strategy,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 7223–7233, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    A survey on the coordination of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at highway on-ramps,

    J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “A survey on the coordination of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at highway on-ramps,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1066–1077, May 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    A comprehensive survey on coop- erative intersection management for heterogeneous connected vehicles,

    A. Gholamhosseinian and J. Seitz, “A comprehensive survey on coop- erative intersection management for heterogeneous connected vehicles,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 7937–7972, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    A decentralized energy-optimal control framework for connected automated vehicles at signal-free intersections,

    A. A. Malikopoulos, C. G. Cassandras, and Y . J. Zhang, “A decentralized energy-optimal control framework for connected automated vehicles at signal-free intersections,” Automatica, vol. 93, pp. 244–256, July 2018. 13

    2018

  26. [34]

    A gen- eral framework for decentralized safe optimal control of connected and automated vehicles in multi-lane signal-free intersections,

    H. Xu, W. Xiao, C. G. Cassandras, Y . Zhang, and L. Li, “A gen- eral framework for decentralized safe optimal control of connected and automated vehicles in multi-lane signal-free intersections,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 17...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Real-time optimization of fuel- consumption and travel-time of CA Vs for cooperative intersection cross- ing,

    A. Hadjigeorgiou and S. Timotheou, “Real-time optimization of fuel- consumption and travel-time of CA Vs for cooperative intersection cross- ing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 313– 329, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Optimizing the fuel consumption of autonomous vehicles using convex-concave programming,

    ——, “Optimizing the fuel consumption of autonomous vehicles using convex-concave programming,” in Proceedings of the 2020 European Control Conference (ECC), Saint-Petersburg, Russia , May 2020

    2020

  29. [38]

    A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traffic lights,

    M. A. S. Kamal, J.-i. Imura, T. Hayakawa, A. Ohata, and K. Aihara, “A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traffic lights,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1136–1147, 2015

    2015

  30. [39]

    Optimisation-based coordination of connected, automated vehicles at intersections,

    R. Hult, M. Zanon, S. Gros, H. Wymeersch, and P. Falcone, “Optimisation-based coordination of connected, automated vehicles at intersections,” V ehicle System Dynamics , vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 726–747, 2020

    2020

  31. [40]

    Real-time fuel economy optimization with nonlinear MPC for PHEVs,

    J. Zhang and T. Shen, “Real-time fuel economy optimization with nonlinear MPC for PHEVs,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 2167–2175, 2016

    2016

  32. [41]

    Model predictive control of vehicles on urban roads for improved fuel economy,

    M. A. S. Kamal, M. Mukai, J. Murata, and T. Kawabe, “Model predictive control of vehicles on urban roads for improved fuel economy,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 831– 841, 2012

    2012

  33. [42]

    Autonomous and semiautonomous intersection management: A survey,

    Z. Zhong, M. Nejad, and E. E. Lee, “Autonomous and semiautonomous intersection management: A survey,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 53–70, 2021

    2021

  34. [43]

    Optimizing the crossing sequence in autonomous intersection management with travel time and energy considerations,

    A. Hadjigeorgiou and S. Timotheou, “Optimizing the crossing sequence in autonomous intersection management with travel time and energy considerations,” in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1474–1479

    2024

  35. [44]

    SAE J2452 201707,

    SAE International, “SAE J2452 201707,” SAE International, July

  36. [45]

    Comparison of car-following behavior in terms of safety indicators between china and sweden,

    T. Liu and Selpi, “Comparison of car-following behavior in terms of safety indicators between china and sweden,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3696–3705, 2020

    2020

  37. [46]

    Minimization of the fuel consumption of a gasoline engine using dynamic optimization,

    B. Saerens, J. Vandersteen, T. Persoons, J. Swevers, M. Diehl, and E. Van den Bulck, “Minimization of the fuel consumption of a gasoline engine using dynamic optimization,” Applied Energy, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 1582– 1588, 2009

    2009

  38. [47]

    An optimization framework for driver feedback systems,

    A. A. Malikopoulos and J. P. Aguilar, “An optimization framework for driver feedback systems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 955–964, June 2013

    2013

  39. [48]

    Power-based electric vehicle energy consumption model: Model development and validation,

    C. Fiori, K. Ahn, and H. A. Rakha, “Power-based electric vehicle energy consumption model: Model development and validation,”Applied Energy, vol. 168, pp. 257–268, 2016

    2016

  40. [49]

    Variations and extension of the convex–concave procedure,

    T. Lipp and S. Boyd, “Variations and extension of the convex–concave procedure,” Optimization and Engineering , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 263–287, November 2015

    2015

  41. [50]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization Inc., “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

  42. [51]

    Model predictive eco-driving control for heavy-duty trucks using branch and bound optimization,

    B. Wingelaar, G. R. G. da Silva, and M. Lazar, “Model predictive eco-driving control for heavy-duty trucks using branch and bound optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 15 178–15 189, 2023

    2023

  43. [52]

    Cooperative energy and time-optimal lane change maneuvers with minimal highway traffic disruption,

    A. S. Chavez Armijos, A. Li, C. G. Cassandras, Y . K. Al- Nadawi, H. Araki, B. Chalaki, E. Moradi-Pari, H. N. Mahjoub, and V . Tadiparthi, “Cooperative energy and time-optimal lane change maneuvers with minimal highway traffic disruption,” Automatica, vol. 165, p. 111651, 2024...

    2024

  44. [53]

    Decentralized optimal control of connected automated vehicles at signal-free intersections including comfort-constrained turns and safety guarantees,

    Y . Zhang and C. G. Cassandras, “Decentralized optimal control of connected automated vehicles at signal-free intersections including comfort-constrained turns and safety guarantees,” Automatica, vol. 109, p. 108563, November 2019

    2019

  45. [54]

    Optimal control of connected automated vehicles with event/self-triggered control barrier functions,

    E. Sabouni, C. G. Cassandras, W. Xiao, and N. Meskin, “Optimal control of connected automated vehicles with event/self-triggered control barrier functions,” Automatica, vol. 162, p. 111530, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109824000220

    2024

  46. [55]

    A survey of longitudinal acceleration comfort studies in ground transportation vehicles,

    L. L. Hoberock, “A survey of longitudinal acceleration comfort studies in ground transportation vehicles,” Council for Advanced Transportation Studies, Tech. Rep., 1976

    1976

  47. [56]

    Intelligent transport systems - Adaptive cruise control systems - Performance requirements and test procedures - ISO 15622:2018(E),

    International Organization for Standardization, “Intelligent transport systems - Adaptive cruise control systems - Performance requirements and test procedures - ISO 15622:2018(E),” https://www.iso.org/standard/ 71515.html, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018

    2018

  48. [57]

    Standards for passenger comfort in automated vehicles: Acceleration and jerk,

    K. N. de Winkel, T. Irmak, R. Happee, and B. Shyrokau, “Standards for passenger comfort in automated vehicles: Acceleration and jerk,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 106, p. 103881, 2023. Andreas Hadjigeorgiou received his BEng in Me- chanical Engineering from the University of Bath...

    2023

  49. [2017]

    Available: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2452 201707, accessed: 08/02/2025

    [Online]. Available: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2452 201707, accessed: 08/02/2025

    2025

  50. [2025]

    Available: https://docs.gurobi.com/projects/optimizer/ en/current/index.html

    [Online]. Available: https://docs.gurobi.com/projects/optimizer/ en/current/index.html

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.