Driving Intention Recognition and Lane Change Prediction on the Highway

Junbo Jing; Teawon Han; Umit Ozguner

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Driving Intention Recognition and Lane Change Prediction on the Highway

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Estimated driver traits lift lane-change prediction AUC past 0.97 on highway data.

desk verdict Interesting feature-engineering idea for lane-change prediction, but the reported advantage over raw sensing is not established by the current evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10820 v1 pith:GFM2PTT7 submitted 2019-08-28 cs.RO

Teawon Han , Junbo Jing , Umit Ozguner This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords drivingintentionrecognitionlanechangepredictionIntelligentDriverModelMOBILLSTMcharacteristicestimationgeneticalgorithmnaturalistichighwaydata

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 aims to establish that an automated vehicle can predict another driver's lane change more accurately by first estimating that driver's hidden driving traits from ordinary externally sensed traffic data, then feeding those traits to a neural-network predictor. The traits chosen are desired time headway and desired acceleration from the Intelligent Driver Model, plus left and right lane-change incentives from the MOBIL lane-change model. On real naturalistic highway trajectory data, the trait-augmented predictor classifies lane-change left, lane-change right, and lane keeping with accuracies around 0.95-0.98 and AUC values of 0.955, 0.978, and 0.964, outperforming the same network fed raw positions and speeds only. If correct, this gives a practical route to intention recognition without vehicle-to-vehicle communication.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage pipeline. Stage one is an online driving-characteristic estimator: a genetic algorithm, initialized and constrained by evolving Takagi-Sugeno (eTS) online clustering, fits the Intelligent Driver Model's desired time headway $T_t$ and desired acceleration $a_t$ to each target vehicle's recent three-second car-following trace, while the MOBIL incentive formula converts nearby expected accelerations into left and right incentive signals $I^{lcl}_t$ and $I^{lcr}_t$. These four values per time step form the driving-characteristic vector. Stage two is an LSTM-based behavior predictor with one LSTM layer of 150 hidden units and a softmax output, which reads a $24 \times 30$ input matrix (21 raw vehicle-state values plus 4 characteristic values over 30 time steps) and returns probabilities for the three classes.

What would settle it

On data with known driver identities, if estimated characteristic vectors from the same driver across different traffic situations are no more similar to each other than to those of other drivers, or if randomly permuting trait channels across drivers leaves prediction accuracy unchanged, then the claimed driver-characteristic mechanism would not be what drives the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that driver-specific longitudinal and lateral characteristics, estimated online from externally sensable traffic data, make lane-change prediction more accurate than raw sensing data alone. Concretely, an LSTM predictor fed a three-second history of seven nearby vehicle states plus estimated IDM parameters $T_t$, $a_t$ and MOBIL incentives $I^{lcl}_t$, $I^{lcr}_t$ achieves accuracies $[0.9533, 0.9803, 0.9631]$ for lane-change left, lane-change right, and lane keeping, with AUC values $[0.9550, 0.9778, 0.9638]$; the identical network fed only raw sensing data achieves accuracies $[0.8354, 0.9435, 0.8426]$ and AUC values $[0.9250, 0.9182, 0.9474]$. The paper interprets this gap as evidence that the estimated driving characteristics provide clearer, more distinct features of driver propensity than maneuver patterns extracted from raw data.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvement rests on the assumption that the online estimates of time headway, desired acceleration, and lane-change incentives capture stable, driver-specific traits rather than artifacts of the surrounding traffic; the paper acknowledges that multiple parameter combinations fit equally well and provides no ground-truth check against known driver identity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The trait-augmented predictor beats the raw-data-only predictor on accuracy, precision, recall, F1, and AUC for all three driving behaviors, so the estimator contributes predictive signal beyond raw positions and speeds.
The framework uses only externally sensor-accessible vehicle states, so it can run from a host vehicle without relying on communication with other vehicles.
Driver traits are inferred from a short three-second horizon, indicating that intention can be recognized shortly before a lane-change maneuver begins.
In naturalistic highway data, lane keeping is the easiest behavior to predict (F1 of 0.977) and lane-change right the hardest (F1 of 0.778), which suggests where additional features or data may be needed.
The system returns probabilities for all three behaviors at every time step, making it directly usable for an automated vehicle's decision-making in mixed traffic.

Reading between the lines

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

If the estimated traits are truly stable per driver, the learned predictor could transfer to new roads or datasets without retraining on local maneuver patterns; the paper does not test transfer, so this remains an inference.
A direct test of the paper's mechanism would be to use data with known driver identities and check whether within-driver trait estimates cluster more tightly than between-driver estimates; the paper reports no such ground-truth validation.
Because the paper acknowledges that the less sensitive IDM parameters can compensate each other while still yielding minimal fitting error, some of the predictive gain attributed to stable driver characteristics may instead encode the current traffic situation; an ablation feeding raw data plus estimated traffic context could separate these effects.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is one to skim for the idea, not for the numbers. The authors combine online IDM parameter estimation (T, a) with MOBIL lane-change incentives and feed those as features into an LSTM to predict LCL/LCR/LK on NGSIM. That pipeline is new in this configuration, and the overall direction—use a physics-based driver model to extract latent features—is worth knowing about. The synthetic-data test of the GA+eTS estimator is also a nice sanity check: it shows the estimation scheme can track time-varying IDM parameters, with the expected caveat that the data is generated by the same model.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The entire PA-vs-PB claim rests on a single 75/25 split described as "75% of total data." NGSIM has long trajectories from 407 vehicles; if the same vehicle appears in both training and test, an LSTM can memorize driver-specific patterns and both models look better. With LCR at only 80 samples, a lucky or leaky split could easily produce the reported AUC gap by chance. No cross-validation, no error bars, no significance test. That alone is enough to say the central comparison is not established.

There is also an internal reporting error: the PB F1 values [0.8354, 0.9435, 0.8624] are not consistent with the listed precisions and recalls—compute 2PR/(P+R) and you get roughly [0.594, 0.343, 0.891]. The paper does not say how neighbor-vehicle IDM parameters are obtained for the MOBIL incentive calculation, which matters because those accelerations are the whole input to Eq. (16). And the mechanism story is weaker than the abstract implies: the paper itself notes that the less sensitive IDM parameters can compensate each other and that multiple parameter sets give the same fitting error, so the "uniquely determined driver characteristics" claim is not supported. Since the MOBIL incentives are literally lane-change decision values, they may be encoding the target maneuver rather than a stable trait. That is a design choice, not disqualifying, but it should be discussed.

If the authors publish code, a vehicle-disjoint split, confidence intervals, and fix the F1 table, this could become a useful baseline. As it stands, I would not cite the empirical result, but I would send it to review because the feature-construction idea is worth referee attention and the evaluation is fixable.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for highway lane-change prediction. In the first stage, an online estimator fits two Intelligent Driver Model (IDM) parameters (desired time headway T and desired acceleration a) using a genetic algorithm guided by eTS online clustering, and computes two MOBIL-based lateral incentives (Ilcl, Ilcr) as lateral driving characteristics. In the second stage, an LSTM classifier receives the raw sensed vehicle states together with these estimated characteristics and predicts three classes: Lane Change Left (LCL), Lane Change Right (LCR), and Lane Keeping (LK). Experiments on NGSIM I-80 data compare two predictors, PA (raw data + estimated characteristics) and PB (raw data only), reporting higher accuracy and AUC for PA. The paper concludes that the proposed framework can recognize driving behavior transition patterns and that the estimated driving characteristics improve prediction performance.

Significance. If the empirical claims are reliable, the paper makes a useful contribution to the intelligent-vehicle literature: it demonstrates a concrete pipeline that converts cheap, externally sensed traffic data into a compact representation of driver propensities and shows that this representation can improve a learned predictor. The online estimation method (GA with eTS-guided initialization) is a reasonable engineering design and the use of naturalistic NGSIM data is a strength. The paper also explicitly compares its feature-augmented predictor with a raw-data baseline, which is the right way to evaluate the added value of the characteristics. However, the significance of the result is currently limited by several unresolved evaluation issues, including a non-reproducible data split and inconsistent reported metrics, which prevent the central claim from being considered established.

major comments (4)

[V-C, V-D] The 75/25 train/test split is specified only as "75 % of total data," with no statement about whether the split is performed per time-window, per trajectory, or per vehicle. NGSIM data consists of multi-second trajectories from 407 target vehicles, and overlapping or temporally adjacent windows from the same vehicle can appear in both training and test sets; an LSTM could then memorize driver- or situation-specific patterns, inflating both PA and PB and potentially creating a spurious PA-vs-PB gap. The LCR class contains only 80 samples in total, so a degenerate split could easily change the LCR metrics by pure chance. The authors should describe the exact splitting procedure, provide a leak-free vehicle-level or trajectory-level split, and report cross-validated results with standard deviations or confidence intervals.
[V-D] The reported precision, recall, and F1 values for PB are internally inconsistent. For LCL, precision 0.4626 and recall 0.8305 give an F1 of 2*P*R/(P+R) = 0.594, not the reported 0.8354; for LCR, precision 0.4000 and recall 0.3000 give F1 = 0.343, not 0.9435; for LK, precision 0.9755 and recall 0.8206 give F1 = 0.891, not 0.8624. Since these same precision/recall values appear in the confusion-matrix discussion and the F1 values are cited as part of the comparison, the quantitative claims in this section are not trustworthy until the metrics are recomputed and presented consistently.
[III-B, IV, V-D] The central mechanistic claim is that the estimated IDM parameters and MOBIL incentives capture stable, driver-specific characteristics, and that this is why PA outperforms PB. The paper itself acknowledges in Section III-B that "multiple convergences exist for minimal fitting error" and that the less sensitive parameters "can compensate each other," which undermines the uniqueness or stability of the estimated characteristics. No ground-truth validation is provided to show that the same driver yields consistent estimates across different traffic episodes or that the parameters correspond to actual driver identity. Moreover, the lateral characteristics Ilcl and Ilcr are computed using MOBIL, which is itself a lane-change decision model, so the added features may simply encode the current traffic-specific propensity to change lanes rather than a stable personal trait. The authors should validate identifiability and stability of the characteristics, or substantially soften the interpretation of what the added features represent.
[V-C, V-D] The reported performance differences between PA and PB are presented without any measure of statistical uncertainty. With only 80 LCR samples in total, the 25% test subset contains around 20 LCR instances, so each misclassification changes precision and recall by approximately 5 percentage points; the observed AUC differences, while large in some cases, may not be statistically significant. The authors should provide per-class test-set sizes and report confidence intervals or significance tests, or use k-fold cross-validation, to establish that the improvement of PA over PB is robust.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract, II-C] The phrase "by proposed the online-estimator" is ungrammatical; it should read "by the proposed online estimator." Also, "sensable" should be "sensible" or "perceivable".
[V-D] The AUC value "09638" in the sentence "PA's AUC of LCL, LCR, and LK are [0.9550, 0.9778, 09638]" is missing a leading zero and should be "0.9638".
[II-C] The choice of a three-second look-back horizon for both parameter estimation and behavior prediction is stated without justification; a brief sensitivity analysis or a reference supporting this horizon would improve the paper.
[IV] Equation (16) fixes the politeness factor at 0.35, while Equation (5) uses the general symbol p. The relationship between the two formulations should be made explicit, and the role of the safety threshold from Equation (4) in the incentive calculation should be clarified.
[Table I] The fitting-error thresholds (E < 0.1, 0.1 <= E < 0.3, etc.) are not defined in the table caption; please define E (presumably the normalized fitting error) so the table is self-contained.
[V-C] The phrase "75 % of total data" should specify whether "data" means the number of time windows, the number of vehicles, or the number of behavior samples, and the class distribution of the training and test subsets should be reported.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the prediction labels are not used to construct the input features, and the lane-change prediction is an empirical supervised classifier rather than a derivation from the features.

full rationale

The central claim is that adding estimated IDM/MOBIL driving characteristics to raw sensing data improves lane-change prediction. The prediction target (LCL/LCR/LK labels from NGSIM) is not used in the construction of the input features: the longitudinal characteristics (T, a) are estimated by fitting IDM to car-following data (Eq. 6), and the lateral characteristics (Ilcl, Ilcr) are computed from the MOBIL incentive formula (Eqs. 15-16). These features are not fitted to the lane-change labels, so the framework is not circular in the derivation sense. The paper does not claim to derive lane changes from MOBIL; it trains an LSTM with a softmax output (Eqs. 17-18) and compares PA (with characteristics) to PB (without). The one superficially circular-looking element is that the lateral 'driving characteristics' are literally MOBIL lane-change incentives, so the PA-vs-PB advantage partly reflects feeding a lane-change decision criterion into the classifier. But that is a feature-engineering and interpretability concern, not a case of the prediction reducing to the input by construction. The unspecified 75/25 split and the internal inconsistency in the PB precision/recall/F1 values are methodological and reporting issues, but they are not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears: the cited IDM, MOBIL, eTS, and LSTM are standard external models, and the HSS self-citations are representational framing rather than the basis of the quantitative prediction claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on representational assumptions that are cited or chosen rather than independently validated: IDM/MOBIL are taken as models of real drivers, estimated parameters are assumed to be stable driver traits, seven neighbor states are assumed observable, and several constants (p, clustering scales, bounds, LSTM size, look-back horizon) are hand-set. The paper's own admission of non-uniqueness in IDM parameter estimation weakens the claim that the characteristics are uniquely determined.

free parameters (5)

politeness factor p = 0.35
MOBIL incentive features Ilcl/Ilcr in Eq. (16); chosen as a constant from the literature range 0.2-0.5, not estimated from the prediction data.
eTS clustering constants gamma1, gamma2 = 0.55, 1.45
Update constraint ranges for IDM parameter estimation in Eq. (7); hand-set scale factors.
eTS clustering constants q, epsilon = q=7, epsilon=0.45
Control cluster creation in Algorithm 1; hand-set.
IDM parameter bounds = delta in [3.8, 4.2], T in [0.1, 5.0], a in [0.1, 9.0]
Hard bounds for GA optimization in Section III-A; chosen with reference to [19] and [23].
LSTM architecture and input horizon = hidden size 150, horizon 30 steps (3 s), 7 neighbor vehicles
Network size and feature window chosen without sensitivity analysis; affects reported prediction performance.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption IDM and MOBIL are valid models of real driver car-following and lane-change decisions.
Feature extraction relies on these models from the literature ([19]-[22]); the paper does not test their adequacy on this dataset beyond fitting error.
domain assumption IDM parameters are stable for a given driver and independent of traffic conditions.
Section II-C states 'IDM parameters don't vary if driving propensity is identical under various traffic situations,' a premise needed for the estimated characteristics to represent driver identity.
domain assumption The seven vehicle states used as inputs are observable by the host vehicle with NGSIM-like accuracy.
NGSIM is fixed-camera trajectory data, not onboard sensor output; the framework assumes lane numbers and states of new and old preceding and following vehicles are externally sensible.
ad hoc to paper A three-second look-back window is sufficient for both parameter estimation and behavior prediction.
The paper fixes n=30 time steps (3 s) without sensitivity analysis or justification beyond practical intuition.
ad hoc to paper The fixed politeness factor p=0.35 represents the region's normal traffic situation.
Section IV states p is selected as a constant and will be made self-adaptive in future work; the MOBIL incentives depend on it.

invented entities (1)

Implicit driving characteristic vector (T, a, I_lcl, I_lcr)
purpose: Latent driver features intended to be independent of traffic conditions and used as LSTM inputs.
The paper asserts these uniquely determine driver propensity, but provides no independent ground truth, and its own estimates show non-uniqueness and parameter chattering.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Driving Intention Recognition and Lane Change Prediction on the Highway." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFM2PTT7

@misc{pith2026190810820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Driving Intention Recognition and Lane Change Prediction on the Highway},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFM2PTT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10820}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a framework to recognize driving intentions and to predict driving behaviors of lane changing on the highway by using externally sensable traffic data from the host-vehicle. The framework consists of a driving characteristic estimator and a driving behavior predictor. A driver's implicit driving characteristic information is uniquely determined and detected by proposed the online-estimator. Neural-network based behavior predictor is developed and validated by testing with the real naturalistic traffic data from Next Generation Simulation (NGSIM), which demonstrates the effectiveness in identifying the driving characteristics and transforming into accurate behavior prediction in real-world traffic situations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10820 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Annotation of nearby vehicles for MOBIL Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of IDM parameter estimation by GA with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Structure of the driving behavior predictor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ROC curve and AUC of PA and PB for LCL, LCR, and LK behaviors. As shown by the results, the prediction accuracy of each driving behavior is higher when implementing the driving characteristics with sensing data. Also, the expected classification performance of PA is b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Hybrid-state driver/vehicle modelling, estimation and prediction,

A. Kurt, J. L. Yester, Y . Mochizuki, and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “Hybrid-state driver/vehicle modelling, estimation and prediction,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th International IEEE Con- ference on, pp. 806–811, IEEE, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

A framework for estimating driver decisions near intersections,

V . Gadepally, A. Krishnamurthy, and U. Ozguner, “A framework for estimating driver decisions near intersections,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 637–646, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Driver behavior modeling near intersections using support vector machines based on statistical feature extraction,

S. B. Amsalu, A. Homaifar, F. Afghah, S. Ramyar, and A. Kurt, “Driver behavior modeling near intersections using support vector machines based on statistical feature extraction,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2015 IEEE , pp. 1270–1275, IEEE, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

A driver behavior recognition method based on a driver model framework,

N. Kuge, T. Yamamura, O. Shimoyama, and A. Liu, “A driver behavior recognition method based on a driver model framework,” tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper, 2000

work page 2000
[5]

Classiﬁcation and regression tree approach for predicting drivers merging behavior in short-term work zone merging areas,

Q. Meng and J. Weng, “Classiﬁcation and regression tree approach for predicting drivers merging behavior in short-term work zone merging areas,”Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 138, no. 8, pp. 1062–1070, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management,

J. Wei, J. M. Dolan, and B. Litkouhi, “Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2013 IEEE , pp. 201–207, IEEE, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Intention estimation for ramp merging control in autonomous driving,

C. Dong, J. M. Dolan, and B. Litkouhi, “Intention estimation for ramp merging control in autonomous driving,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2017 IEEE , pp. 1584–1589, IEEE, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Lane change prediction by combining movement and situation based probabilities,

C. Wissing, T. Nattermann, K.-H. Glander, C. Hass, and T. Bertram, “Lane change prediction by combining movement and situation based probabilities,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 3554–3559, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 31 references

[9]

Learning-based approach for online lane change intention prediction,

P. Kumar, M. Perrollaz, S. Lefevre, and C. Laugier, “Learning-based approach for online lane change intention prediction,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2013 IEEE , pp. 797–802, IEEE, 2013

2013
[10]

Lane changing prediction at highway lane drops using support vector machine and artiﬁcial neural network classiﬁers,

Y . Dou, F. Yan, and D. Feng, “Lane changing prediction at highway lane drops using support vector machine and artiﬁcial neural network classiﬁers,” in Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2016 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 901–906, IEEE, 2016

2016
[11]

A framework for estimating long term driver behavior,

V . Gadepally, A. Krishnamurthy, and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “A framework for estimating long term driver behavior,”Journal of advanced transporta- tion, vol. 2017, 2017

2017
[12]

Behavior measurement, analysis and regime classiﬁcation in car following,

X. Ma and I. Andreasson, “Behavior measurement, analysis and regime classiﬁcation in car following,” IEEE transactions on intelli- gent transportation systems (Print) , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 144–156, 2007

2007
[13]

Driving style assessment based on the gps data and fuzzy inference systems,

O. Derbel et al., “Driving style assessment based on the gps data and fuzzy inference systems,” in Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD), 2015 12th International Multi-Conference on , pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2015

2015
[14]

Trajectory prediction of a lane changing vehicle based on driver behavior estimation and classiﬁcation,

P. Liu, A. Kurt, et al., “Trajectory prediction of a lane changing vehicle based on driver behavior estimation and classiﬁcation,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2014 IEEE 17th International Confer- ence on, pp. 942–947, IEEE, 2014

2014
[15]

Classiﬁcation of highway lane change behavior to detect dangerous cut-in maneuvers,

P. Liu, A. Kurt, K. Redmill, and U. Ozguner, “Classiﬁcation of highway lane change behavior to detect dangerous cut-in maneuvers,” in The Transportation Research Board (TRB) 95th Annual Meeting , vol. 2, 2015

2015
[16]

Hybrid state system development for autonomous vehicle control in urban scenarios,

A. Kurt and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “Hybrid state system development for autonomous vehicle control in urban scenarios,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 9540–9545, 2008

2008
[17]

Ohio state university experiences at the darpa challenges,

K. A. Redmill, U. Ozguner, S. Biddlestone, A. Hsieh, and J. Martin, “Ohio state university experiences at the darpa challenges,” SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles , vol. 1, no. 2008-01- 2718, pp. 527–533, 2008

2008
[18]

Hierarchical ﬁnite state machines for autonomous mobile systems,

A. Kurt and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “Hierarchical ﬁnite state machines for autonomous mobile systems,” Control Engineering Practice , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 184–194, 2013

2013
[19]

Congested trafﬁc states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,

M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Congested trafﬁc states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,” Physical review E, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 1805, 2000

2000
[20]

Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on trafﬁc capac- ity,

A. Kesting, M. Treiber, and D. Helbing, “Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on trafﬁc capac- ity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 368, no. 1928, pp. 4...

1928
[21]

Modeling lane-changing decisions with mobil,

M. Treiber and A. Kesting, “Modeling lane-changing decisions with mobil,” in Trafﬁc and Granular Flow07, pp. 211–221, Springer, 2009

2009
[22]

General lane-changing model mobil for car-following models,

A. Kesting, M. Treiber, and D. Helbing, “General lane-changing model mobil for car-following models,” Transportation Research Record , vol. 1999, no. 1, pp. 86–94, 2007

1999
[23]

Do we really need to calibrate all the parameters? variance-based sensitivity analysis to simplify microscopic trafﬁc ﬂow models,

V . Punzo, M. Montanino, and B. Ciuffo, “Do we really need to calibrate all the parameters? variance-based sensitivity analysis to simplify microscopic trafﬁc ﬂow models,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 184–193, 2015

2015
[24]

A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a matlab implementation,

C. R. Houck, J. Joines, and M. G. Kay, “A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a matlab implementation,” NCSU-IE TR , vol. 95, no. 09, 1995

1995
[25]

An approach to online identiﬁcation of takagi-sugeno fuzzy models,

P. P. Angelov and D. P. Filev, “An approach to online identiﬁcation of takagi-sugeno fuzzy models,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 484–498, 2004

2004
[26]

Real-time driver characterization during car following using stochastic evolving mod- els,

D. Filev, J. Lu, F. Tseng, and K. Prakah-Asante, “Real-time driver characterization during car following using stochastic evolving mod- els,” in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on , pp. 1031–1036, IEEE, 2011

2011
[27]

Vehicle speed prediction in a convoy using v2v communication,

J. Jing, A. Kurt, E. Ozatay, J. Michelini, D. Filev, and U. Ozguner, “Vehicle speed prediction in a convoy using v2v communication,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2015 IEEE 18th Interna- tional Conference on , pp. 2861–2868, IEEE, 2015

2015
[28]

Us department of transportation fhwa, 2008a. ngsim next generation simulation,

J. Colyar, “Us department of transportation fhwa, 2008a. ngsim next generation simulation,” in http://www.ngsim.fhwa.dot.gov, (accessed 31.10.08)., US Department of Transportation, 2006

2006
[29]

Long short-term memory,

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

1997
[30]

Pattern recognition and machine learning (information science and statistics) springer-verlag new york,

C. M. Bishop, “Pattern recognition and machine learning (information science and statistics) springer-verlag new york,” Inc. Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2006

2006
[31]

Evaluation: from precision, recall and f-measure to roc, informedness, markedness and correlation,

D. M. Powers, “Evaluation: from precision, recall and f-measure to roc, informedness, markedness and correlation,” 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hybrid-state driver/vehicle modelling, estimation and prediction,

A. Kurt, J. L. Yester, Y . Mochizuki, and ¨U. ¨Ozg¨uner, “Hybrid-state driver/vehicle modelling, estimation and prediction,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th International IEEE Con- ference on, pp. 806–811, IEEE, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

A framework for estimating driver decisions near intersections,

V . Gadepally, A. Krishnamurthy, and U. Ozguner, “A framework for estimating driver decisions near intersections,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 637–646, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Driver behavior modeling near intersections using support vector machines based on statistical feature extraction,

S. B. Amsalu, A. Homaifar, F. Afghah, S. Ramyar, and A. Kurt, “Driver behavior modeling near intersections using support vector machines based on statistical feature extraction,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2015 IEEE , pp. 1270–1275, IEEE, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

A driver behavior recognition method based on a driver model framework,

N. Kuge, T. Yamamura, O. Shimoyama, and A. Liu, “A driver behavior recognition method based on a driver model framework,” tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [5]

Classiﬁcation and regression tree approach for predicting drivers merging behavior in short-term work zone merging areas,

Q. Meng and J. Weng, “Classiﬁcation and regression tree approach for predicting drivers merging behavior in short-term work zone merging areas,”Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 138, no. 8, pp. 1062–1070, 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management,

J. Wei, J. M. Dolan, and B. Litkouhi, “Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2013 IEEE , pp. 201–207, IEEE, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Intention estimation for ramp merging control in autonomous driving,

C. Dong, J. M. Dolan, and B. Litkouhi, “Intention estimation for ramp merging control in autonomous driving,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2017 IEEE , pp. 1584–1589, IEEE, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Lane change prediction by combining movement and situation based probabilities,

C. Wissing, T. Nattermann, K.-H. Glander, C. Hass, and T. Bertram, “Lane change prediction by combining movement and situation based probabilities,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 3554–3559, 2017

work page 2017