Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Spatiotemporal Trajectory Tracking Method for Vehicles Incorporating Lead-Lag Judgement

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

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

Pith's one-line read A lead-lag judgment mechanism plus real-time acceleration compensation keeps a vehicle's spatiotemporal tracking error to about 1.21 meters in a 100 km/h highway simulation, after real-vehicle tests showed the error grows with speed and…

desk verdict Real-vehicle error data is the one solid piece, but the lead-lag compensation is never actually tested, and the 1.21 m simulation result is not evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03974 v1 pith:XC57ZH5B submitted 2025-02-06 eess.SY cs.SY

Yuan Li , Xiang Dong , Tao Li , Junfeng Hao , Xiaoxue Xu , Sana Ullaha , Yincai Cai , Peng Wu
show 1 more author
Ting Peng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords spatiotemporaltrajectorytrackinglead-lagjudgmentaccelerationcompensationLQRlateralcontroldualPIDlongitudinalhighwayrampmergingconnectedautonomousvehicleserror
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 trajectory tracking for autonomous vehicles should control not just where a vehicle is but when it gets there, and offers a concrete way to do so. Its lead-lag judgment mechanism compares the vehicle's position with the target trajectory point at the same time, decides whether the vehicle is ahead or behind using a dot product with the trajectory's tangent, and applies real-time acceleration compensation only when the longitudinal offset exceeds half a meter. Real-vehicle experiments on straight, curved, and combined tracks show that spatiotemporal errors grow with speed and alignment complexity, reaching about two meters in combined straight-curve segments. In a simulation on real highway alignment data at a desired 100 km/h, the mechanism holds the maximum spatiotemporal error to approximately 1.21 meters. If these numbers transfer to real vehicles, the method gives cooperative ramp merging a quantitative spatiotemporal margin to plan against.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the lead-lag judgment criterion built on tangent and normal projections of the position-difference vector. With $U_\tau$ the unit tangent to the target trajectory and $U_n$ its perpendicular, the signs of $\overrightarrow{PP'}\cdot U_\tau$ and $\overrightarrow{PP'}\cdot U_n$ classify the tracked point as lead/lag and left/right relative to the target point at the same time. The longitudinal projection feeds a dead-zone acceleration compensator: no correction within $\pm 0.5$ m, and a quadratic compensation term $\ddot{a}_{\mathrm{Compensation}}(t)$ beyond that, so the vehicle's progress is pulled back toward the target trajectory's time schedule. This turns spatiotemporal tracking into a feedback problem on a scalar time-offset variable.

What would settle it

Run the same 100 km/h highway simulation with a validated vehicle dynamics model (e.g., a bicycle model with steering actuator delay, tire slip, and longitudinal-lateral coupling) and measure the maximum lead/lag error; if it substantially exceeds 1.21 m or the acceleration compensation induces oscillation, the paper's central effectiveness claim is not transferable to real vehicles.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a temporal error signal—how far ahead or behind the vehicle is along the target trajectory—can be extracted from the same dot-product geometry used for lateral error and then closed-loop corrected with a simple acceleration law. At each time, the vector from target point to tracked point is projected onto the unit tangent of the target trajectory; a positive projection means the vehicle is ahead (lead), a negative means behind (lag), and the projection magnitude is the longitudinal spatiotemporal error. A perpendicular projection gives left/right lateral error. When the longitudinal error exceeds ±0.5 m, a quadratic acceleration compensation term is added: negative compensation for lead, positive for lag. The paper validates this with low-speed real-vehicle tests using LQR lateral control and dual PID longitudinal control, and with a 100 km/h simulation on a real highway alignment with 2% random speed noise, reporting a maximum spatiotemporal error of about 1.21 m.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is the simulation's vehicle model, where speed and heading angle respond to path curvature and a small random speed error without real actuator lag, tire slip, or coupling between lateral and longitudinal control; if actual vehicle dynamics differ from that idealization, the measured 1.21 m error may not appear in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a desired highway speed of 100 km/h on a real road alignment, with a 2% random speed error, the maximum spatiotemporal (lead/lag) error reported is about 1.21 m, bounded by the threshold plus accumulated correction error.
  • The paper's real-vehicle experiments show that spatiotemporal error increases with speed and alignment complexity, peaking around 2 m on combined straight-curve segments, so timing control matters most precisely where merging is hardest.
  • The ±0.5 m dead-zone means small deviations are ignored, which the authors argue prevents overcorrection and instability during normal driving.
  • Because the mechanism outputs a scalar longitudinal time-offset, it gives a directly usable spatiotemporal distance for cooperative ramp merging in the preemptive holistic collaborative system.
  • The decoupled control architecture—LQR for lateral, dual PID for longitudinal, plus temporal compensation—is shown in real-vehicle tests to keep lateral and heading errors small, so the temporal layer can be added to existing spatial trackers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulated 1.21 m error transfers to practice, it corresponds to roughly 44 ms of travel time at 100 km/h; merging controllers would still need to add communication and actuation latency margins on top, a point the paper leaves implicit.
  • The dot-product lead-lag criterion is sensor-agnostic and not tied to highway geometry; the same projection could serve as a lightweight temporal-error estimator for drones, mobile robots, or any trajectory follower with an onboard position estimate.
  • The simulation's idealized vehicle response—speed and heading adjusted only by curvature plus 2% speed noise—omits actuator lag and tire dynamics; a hardware-in-the-loop test with a validated dynamics model would show how much of the 1.21 m survives.
  • The acceleration compensation formula contains a tuning parameter $\omega$ that the paper does not systematically sweep; relating it to vehicle responsiveness and jerk limits could turn the mechanism into a design rule rather than a tuned controller.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lead-lag judgment mechanism for spatiotemporal trajectory tracking: using the dot product between the vehicle-to-target position vector and the target-path tangent (Eqs. (1)-(4)) to classify the tracking point as ahead or behind, a companion dot product with the normal (Eqs. (5)-(6)) for lateral side, and an acceleration-compensation law (Eq. (7)) with a ±0.5 m deadband that adds positive or negative acceleration when the longitudinal deviation exceeds the threshold. The authors report real-vehicle experiments at 20-30 km/h on straight, curved, and combined tracks using an LQR+dual-PID controller, with the lead-lag criterion applied only in post-processing to quantify speed, heading, lateral, and advance/delay errors. They then present a highway simulation based on the S81 Huili-Luquan expressway alignment with a desired speed of 100 km/h, reporting a maximum spatiotemporal error of about 1.21 m (Fig. 5(f)), which is taken to validate the compensation mechanism. The paper claims implications for safe spatiotemporal distances in preemptive highway ramp merging.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the contribution would be of genuine interest: temporal (as opposed to purely spatial) trajectory tracking is under-served in the CAV merging literature, and a cheap, interpretable lead/lag classifier could be useful for diagnostic and supervisory layers. The dot-product criterion itself is clearly and compactly defined, and the real-vehicle data set provides a reasonable empirical description of how speed, heading, and lateral errors behave on straight and curved sections at low speed. Those are strengths. However, the paper's headline result — 'validating its effectiveness' of the compensation mechanism at 100 km/h (Conclusion item 2) — is not established. The validating simulation is generated by a kinematic rule that adjusts the vehicle speed and heading to the path curvature (Section 4), the compensation law has undisclosed parameters (Eq. (7)), there is no baseline or ablation, and the field experiments never run the proposed compensation online.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4; Conclusion item 2] The central validation claim rests on a simulation that does not model vehicle dynamics. Section 4 states that 'the vehicle speed and heading angle were adaptively adjusted in accordance with the curvature characteristics of the original path,' which describes a kinematic trajectory generator rather than a vehicle with actuator lag, tire dynamics, or lateral-longitudinal coupling. The reported maximum spatiotemporal error of approximately 1.21 m (Fig. 5(f)) is therefore a property of that generator under the proposed compensation, and the claim in Conclusion item 2 that the algorithm 'validated its effectiveness' is unsupported: the tracking trajectory and the error being measured are both produced by the same mechanism, making the validation circular. A faithful test needs a vehicle model, or real closed-loop experiments, that is not already slaved to the target path's curvature.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (7)] The compensation law in Eq. (7) contains two parameters, ω and T, that are never defined or given numerical values anywhere in the paper; T appears in the equation but is not even identified as the intended time constant, and no tuning procedure, initial conditions, or simulation time step are disclosed. Because Eq. (7) is the proposed mechanism whose effectiveness is the paper's headline claim, the 1.21 m result cannot be reproduced, and it cannot be determined whether the reported error is sensitive to these parameters or simply reflects a favorable choice. This is a load-bearing omission for a validation claim; at minimum, a table of all parameters and a sensitivity or ablation study over ω and T is required.
  3. [Section 3 vs. Section 4] No baseline or ablation isolates the effect of the proposed mechanism. Section 4 reports only the compensated run; there is no simulation with the compensation disabled and no comparison with the LQR+dual-PID controller used in the field experiments. Conversely, the real-vehicle experiments in Section 3 never activate the lead-lag compensation online — the Abstract states that the tracking data 'was subsequent processed using the lead-lag judgment mechanism,' i.e., the criterion is applied only in post-processing. Consequently, no part of the paper demonstrates empirically or in simulation that the compensation reduces error relative to an existing controller; a cross-comparison (same scenario, with and without compensation) is the minimum needed to support the Abstract's claim of 'significantly enhanced' accuracy.
  4. [Abstract; Section 4; Conclusion] The claims about highway ramp merging are not supported by the presented scenarios. The simulation in Section 4 is a single vehicle tracking a single path on a highway alignment, and the field tests are single-vehicle, low-speed tracking runs. There is no ramp-merging scenario with multiple vehicles, conflicts, or merge-sequence constraints anywhere in the paper, yet the Abstract concludes that 'reasonable spatiotemporal distance is given during the preemptive merging process on highway ramps' and the Conclusion states the algorithm was designed to 'establish safe spatiotemporal distances for highway ramp merging.' These statements overstate the scope of what was tested; they should either be removed or supported by a multi-vehicle merging simulation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript needs a careful language edit: examples include 'was subsequent processed' (Abstract), 'an lead/lag judgment' (Conclusion item 1), and the pervasive garbled spacing in the displayed equations and figure captions, which obscures the derivations.
  2. [Section 3] The experimental platform is not described adequately for replication: vehicle type, positioning/sensor system, the LQR and PID gains, and sampling times are all missing, which prevents independent verification of the reported error measurements.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Eq. (7)] The symbol T is used both in '0 ≤ t ≤ T' in Section 2.1 and in the compensation law of Eq. (7); the two appear unrelated and neither is defined. Also, the limit notation in Eqs. (2)-(3) (written as '0t → 0') is unclear; presumably a limit Δt → 0 is intended and should be rewritten.
  4. [Figures 2-5] Several subplots lack axis labels and units in the captions, and the speed-error intervals quoted in the text (e.g., '[−0.1, 0.5] m/s') should be stated with units and made consistent with Fig. 5(c). The captions of Figs. 2-4 also label their subplots inconsistently.
  5. [References] The reference list has malformed entries: [30], [31], and [33] are self-citations of arXiv preprints with broken identifiers (e.g., '241101918' missing the dot), and [22] lacks volume and page information. The authors' own preprints should be cited in final published form where available.
  6. [Abstract] The Abstract states that tracking errors were 'maintained in an acceptable range' without defining the acceptance criterion; specify the quantitative threshold used to judge acceptability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed validation of the lead-lag compensation is self-fulfilling: the simulation generates the tracking vehicle's speed and heading from the same path used as the target, so the 1.21 m error is built in by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, Simulation Experiment, data-processing paragraph (second paragraph)]
    "Taking into account the speed fluctuations of vehicles in real-world scenarios, a 2% random speed error was incorporated, and the vehicle speed and heading angle were adaptively adjusted in accordance with the curvature characteristics of the original path."

    This sentence defines the simulated tracking vehicle's motion from the same original path that defines the target trajectory. The lateral errors in Fig. 5 (within ±0.00026 m) are therefore imposed by the trajectory-generation rule, not produced by an independent vehicle model or controller. The headline 1.21 m spatiotemporal error in the same section is an output of this rule plus the Section 2.2 compensation algorithm. Conclusion item (2) then states the algorithm 'achieved a spatiotemporal error of approximately 1.21 meters, validating its effectiveness.' Because the simulated vehicle is forced to conform to the path's curvature, the validation reduces to the simulation's own input assumption.

full rationale

The lead-lag criterion (Eq. 4) and acceleration-compensation law (Eq. 7) are algebraically self-contained definitions rather than circular derivations, and the real-vehicle experiments are independent data (though they only post-process data with the criterion and do not test the compensation). The paper's central validation, however, is the Section 4 simulation, and that simulation explicitly adjusts the vehicle speed and heading 'in accordance with the curvature characteristics of the original path.' This makes the simulated tracking trajectory conform to the target by construction, so the reported 1.21 m spatiotemporal error and near-zero lateral errors are built into the simulation setup rather than demonstrating the controller's effectiveness. The self-citations [30]-[33] in the introduction provide background framework and are not load-bearing for the proposed mechanism, so they do not raise the score. Undisclosed parameters in Eq. (7) and the absence of a no-compensation ablation are reproducibility and correctness concerns, not circularity per se. Overall: one central 'prediction' reduces by construction, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the threshold and control gains in the compensation law, which are hand-set and undisclosed. The key assumption is the idealized vehicle response in the simulation, which is not validated against real dynamics.

free parameters (3)
  • Longitudinal error threshold = 0.5 m
    Set in Section 2.2 as ±0.5m to prevent frequent adjustments; no systematic tuning or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Acceleration compensation gain ω
    Appears in Equation (7) but its value is not reported; likely tuned to make the simulation work.
  • Time constant T
    Appears in Equation (7) but its value is not reported; needed to reproduce the simulation.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The vehicle in the simulation follows commanded speed and heading with only adaptive adjustment to path curvature, without detailed actuator or tire dynamics.
    Section 4 simulation setup states speed and heading are adaptively adjusted to curvature, but no vehicle model equations are given.
  • standard math The dot-product criterion in Equation (4) correctly classifies lead/lag by projecting the position error onto the tangent direction.
    This is a direct consequence of orthogonal projection and is mathematically valid, though it only captures longitudinal error along the tangent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatiotemporal Trajectory Tracking Method for Vehicles Incorporating Lead-Lag Judgement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XC57ZH5B

@misc{pith2026250203974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatiotemporal Trajectory Tracking Method for Vehicles Incorporating Lead-Lag Judgement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XC57ZH5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03974}
}
read the original abstract

In the domain of intelligent transportation systems, especially within the context of autonomous vehicle control, the preemptive holistic collaborative system has been presented as a promising solution to bring a remarkable enhancement in traffic efficiency and a substantial reduction in the accident rate, demonstrating a great potential of development. In order to ensure this system operates as intended, accurate tracking of the spatiotemporal trajectory is of crucial significance. Moreover, minimizing the tracking error is a necessary step in this process. To this end, a novel lead-lag judgment mechanism is proposed. This mechanism precisely quantifies the longitudinal positional deviation between the vehicle and the target trajectory over time, then the deviation is corrected with a real - time acceleration compensation strategy, as a result, the accuracy and reliability of trajectory tracking are significantly enhanced. Real - vehicle experiments were conducted in a dedicated test field to validate the feasibility of this innovative approach empirically. Subsequently, the obtained tracking data was subsequent processed using the lead-lag judgment mechanism. In this step, we carefully analyzed the spatiotemporal error patterns between the vehicle and the target trajectory under different alignments and speeds. Finally, using real highway speed and alignment data, we conducted comprehensive spatiotemporal trajectory tracking simulations. Through experiments and simulations, tracking errors maintained in an acceptable range and reasonable spatiotemporal distance is given during the preemptive merging process on highway ramps. Overall, this study offers valuable insights for highway ramp emerging safety. Future work can expand on these findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03974 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. In terms of speed error, significant fluctuations, predominantly negative, were observed within the first approximately 16 seconds on straight sections, with a fluctuation range of approximately m/s. Subsequently, the speed error gradually stabilized, narrowing the fluctuation range to m/s. Upon entering curved sections, the speed error further decreased, primarily staying within m/s. Regarding heading angle error, … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Novel Pure-Pursuit Trajectory Following Approaches and their Practical Applications [Z]

    HORVáTH E, HAJDU C, KORöS P, et al. Novel Pure-Pursuit Trajectory Following Approaches and their Practical Applications [Z]. 2019 10TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COGNITIVE INFOCOMMUNICATIONS (COGINFOCOM 2019). 2019: 597-601.10.1109/coginfocom47531.2019.9089927

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Vehicle Path Tracking Control Using Pure Pursuit With MPC -Based Look -Ahead Distance Optimization [J]

    KIM S, LEE J, HAN K, et al. Vehicle Path Tracking Control Using Pure Pursuit With MPC -Based Look -Ahead Distance Optimization [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 73(1): 53-66

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Pragmatic and effective enhancements for Stanley Path -tracking controller by considering system delay [J]

    SEIFFER A, FREY M, GAUTERIN F. Pragmatic and effective enhancements for Stanley Path -tracking controller by considering system delay [J]. Vehicles, 2023, 5(2): 615-36

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Adaptive Stanley Control Method Based on Dynamic Window Approach; proceedings of the IECON 2023 -49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, F, 2023 [C]

    ZHUANG J, HUANG G, ZHONG Y, et al. Adaptive Stanley Control Method Based on Dynamic Window Approach; proceedings of the IECON 2023 -49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, F, 2023 [C]. IEEE

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    HOCAOGLU Y, AKCAL A, TUNCEL A, et al. A Stanley Controller Design for Enhancing Vehicle Lane Keeping and Departure Performance Using Active Rear Wheel Steering; proceedings of the 2023 European Control Conference (ECC), F 13-16 June 2023, 2023 [C]

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A path-tracking algorithm using predictive Stanley lateral controller [J]

    ABDELMONIEM A, OSAMA A, ABDELAZIZ M, et al. A path-tracking algorithm using predictive Stanley lateral controller [J]. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2020, 17(6): 1729881420974852

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Model Prediction Control Path Tracking Algorithm Based on Adaptive Stanley; proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 96th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Fall), F 26-29 Sept

    HUA Q, PENG B, MOU X, et al. Model Prediction Control Path Tracking Algorithm Based on Adaptive Stanley; proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 96th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Fall), F 26-29 Sept. 2022, 2022 [C]

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A new fuzzy PID control system based on fuzzy PID controller and fuzzy control process [J]

    PHU N D, HUNG N N, AHMADIAN A, et al. A new fuzzy PID control system based on fuzzy PID controller and fuzzy control process [J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2020, 22(7): 2163-87

    work page 2020

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Intelligent vehicle path tracking control based on improved MPC and hybrid PID [J]

    PEICHENG S, LI L, NI X, et al. Intelligent vehicle path tracking control based on improved MPC and hybrid PID [J]. IEEE Access, 2022, 10: 94133-44

    2022

  2. [10]

    Intelligent vehicle lateral control strategy research based on feedforward+ predictive LQR algorithm with GA optimisation and PID compensation [J]

    ZHENG Z -A, YE Z, ZHENG X. Intelligent vehicle lateral control strategy research based on feedforward+ predictive LQR algorithm with GA optimisation and PID compensation [J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14(1): 22317

    2024

  3. [11]

    Comparison of Linear Quadratic –Regulator and Gaussian – Controllers’ Performance, LQR and LQG: Ball -on-Sphere System as a Case Study [J]

    MOHAMMED U, KARATAEV T, OSHIGA O O, et al. Comparison of Linear Quadratic –Regulator and Gaussian – Controllers’ Performance, LQR and LQG: Ball -on-Sphere System as a Case Study [J]. Int J Eng Manuf(IJEM), 2021, 11: 45-67

    2021

  4. [12]

    Improved LQR control using PSO optimization and Kalman filter estimator [J]

    MAGHFIROH H, NIZAM M, ANWAR M, et al. Improved LQR control using PSO optimization and Kalman filter estimator [J]. IEEE Access, 2022, 10: 18330-7

    2022

  5. [13]

    An Improvement in LQR Controller Design based on Modified Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization and Model Order Reduction [J]

    ABDULLAH H N. An Improvement in LQR Controller Design based on Modified Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization and Model Order Reduction [J]. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering & Systems, 2021, 14(1)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Automatic parking trajectory tracking control strategy on LQR and PID; proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, F, 2022 [C]

    ZHONG J, YANG B, LI J, et al. Automatic parking trajectory tracking control strategy on LQR and PID; proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, F, 2022 [C]. EDP Sciences

    2022

  7. [15]

    Tracking control of intelligent vehicle lane change based on RLMPC; proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, F, 2021 [C]

    HOU Q, ZHANG Y, ZHAO S, et al. Tracking control of intelligent vehicle lane change based on RLMPC; proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, F, 2021 [C]. EDP Sciences

    2021

  8. [16]

    MING LIU J, LIU M, SI ZHONG P, et al. Design of fuzzy adaptive synovial control system for lower limb exoskeleton; proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Equipment and Special Robots (ICIESR 2021), F, 2021 [C]. SPIE

    2021

  9. [17]

    ROS -based trajectory tracking control for autonomous tracked vehicle using optimized backstepping and sliding mode control [J]

    SABIHA A D, KAMEL M A, SAID E, et al. ROS -based trajectory tracking control for autonomous tracked vehicle using optimized backstepping and sliding mode control [J]. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2022, 152: 104058

    2022

  10. [18]

    Improved ADRC -Based Autonomous Vehicle Path -Tracking Control Study Considering Lateral Stability [J]

    KANG N, HAN Y, GUAN T, et al. Improved ADRC -Based Autonomous Vehicle Path -Tracking Control Study Considering Lateral Stability [J]. Applied Sciences, 2022, 12(9): 4660

    2022

  11. [19]

    A Rule -Based Cooperative Merging Strategy for Connected and Automated Vehicles [J]

    DING J S Y, LI L, PENG H, et al. A Rule -Based Cooperative Merging Strategy for Connected and Automated Vehicles [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2020, 21(8): 3436-46

    2020

  12. [20]

    An Integrated Approach to Optimal Merging Sequence Generation and Trajectory Planning of Connected Automated Vehicles for Freeway On - Ramp Merging Sections [J]

    CHEN J, ZHOU Y, CHUNG E. An Integrated Approach to Optimal Merging Sequence Generation and Trajectory Planning of Connected Automated Vehicles for Freeway On - Ramp Merging Sections [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2024, 25(2): 1897-912

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cooperative Game Approach to Optimal Merging Sequence and on -Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles [J]

    JING S C, HUI F, ZHAO X M, et al. Cooperative Game Approach to Optimal Merging Sequence and on -Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles [J]. Spatiotemporal Trajectory Tracking Method for Vehicles Incorporating Lead-Lag Judgement 11 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLI...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Cooperative Ramp Merging Strategy at Multi-Lane Area for Automated Vehicles [J]

    CHEN R, YANG Z. Cooperative Ramp Merging Strategy at Multi-Lane Area for Automated Vehicles [J]. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Integrated Longitudinal and Lateral Hierarchical Control of Cooperative Merging of Connected and Automated Vehicles at On -Ramps [J]

    JING S C, HUI F, ZHAO X M, et al. Integrated Longitudinal and Lateral Hierarchical Control of Cooperative Merging of Connected and Automated Vehicles at On -Ramps [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2022, 23(12): 24248-62

    2022

  16. [24]

    A novel hierarchical cooperative merging control model of connected and automated vehicles featuring flexible merging positions in system optimization [J]

    [TANG Z, ZHU H, ZHANG X, et al. A novel hierarchical cooperative merging control model of connected and automated vehicles featuring flexible merging positions in system optimization [J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2022, 138: 103650

    2022

  17. [25]

    A Hierarchical Model-Based Optimization Control Approach for Cooperative Merging by Connected Automated Vehicles [J]

    CHEN N, VAN AREM B, ALKIM T, et al. A Hierarchical Model-Based Optimization Control Approach for Cooperative Merging by Connected Automated Vehicles [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2021, 22(12): 7712-25

    2021

  18. [26]

    Safety -Critical and Flexible Cooperative On-Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles in Mixed Traffic [J]

    LIU H J, ZHUANG W C, YIN G D, et al. Safety -Critical and Flexible Cooperative On-Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles in Mixed Traffic [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2023, 24(3): 2920-34

    2023

  19. [27]

    Deep reinforcement learning algorithm based ramp merging decision model [J]

    CHEN Z Y, DU Y, JIANG A N, et al. Deep reinforcement learning algorithm based ramp merging decision model [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART D- JOURNAL OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Cooperative On- Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles: Distributed Multi- Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach [Z]

    ZHOU S X, ZHUANG W C, YIN G D, et al. Cooperative On- Ramp Merging Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles: Distributed Multi- Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach [Z]. 2022 IEEE 25TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ( ITSC). 2022: 402 -...

    2022

  21. [29]

    High -Speed Ramp Merging Behavior Decision for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Multiagent Reinforcement Learning [J]

    ZHANG X, WU L, LIU H, et al. High -Speed Ramp Merging Behavior Decision for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Multiagent Reinforcement Learning [J]. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2023, 10(24): 22664-72

    2023

  22. [30]

    Preemptive Holistic Collaborative System and Its Application in Road Transportation

    PENG T, LI Y, LI T, et al. Preemptive Holistic Collaborative System and Its Application in Road Transportation. arXiv preprint arXiv:241101918, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Holistic view of the road transportation system based on real -time data sharing mechanism

    LI T, DONG X, HAO JUNFENG, et al. Holistic view of the road transportation system based on real -time data sharing mechanism. arXiv preprint arXiv:240703187, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Preemptive Conflict Resolution in Road Transport: A Holistic Approach for Enhancing Efficiency and Safety [M]

    PENG T, LI Y, DONG X, et al. Preemptive Conflict Resolution in Road Transport: A Holistic Approach for Enhancing Efficiency and Safety [M]. Insight W&T 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Optimizing Highway Ramp Merge Safety and Efficiency via Spatiotemporal Cooperative Control and Vehicle -Road Coordination [J]

    PENG T, XU X, LI Y, et al. Optimizing Highway Ramp Merge Safety and Efficiency via Spatiotemporal Cooperative Control and Vehicle -Road Coordination [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:240808121, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.