为自动驾驶接驳车开发了多指标评估框架并验证了机器学习模型的优越性。
Calibration and Evaluation of Car-Following Models for Autonomous Shuttles Using a Novel Multi-Criteria Framework
- 用真实轨迹数据校准8种机器学习模型和2个物理模型。
- XGBoost模型在预测精度与轨迹稳定性上表现最佳,优于传统模型。
- 提出多标准评估框架,支持模型系统化对比,适合交通仿真研究者。
自动驾驶接驳车(AS)是完全自主的公共交通工具,其运行特性与常规自动驾驶车辆(AV)不同。为理解其交通影响,开发专用于AS的跟驰模型至关重要,但现有研究缺乏基于实地数据的校准。尚未应用更先进的机器学习(ML)技术分析AS轨迹,导致其动态特征未被充分挖掘,制约了专用模型的发展。此外,尚无统一框架系统评估和比较跟驰模型对真实轨迹的复现能力,现有研究依赖各异的评价指标,限制了结果可复现性与性能可比性。本研究通过两项主要贡献填补空白:(1)利用真实世界AS轨迹数据校准多种跟驰模型,包括8种机器学习算法和2个物理模型;(2)提出一种多准则评估框架,整合预测精度、轨迹稳定性和统计相似性,提供通用化的系统评估方法。结果表明,所提出的校准后XGBoost模型整体表现最优。序列模型(如LSTM和CNN)能捕捉长期位置稳定性,但对短期动态响应较弱。传统模型(IDM、ACC)和核方法的准确性和稳定性均低于多数测试的机器学习模型。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Autonomous shuttles (AS) are fully autonomous transit vehicles with operating characteristics distinct from conventional autonomous vehicles (AV). Developing dedicated car-following models for AS is critical to understanding their traffic impacts; however, few studies have calibrated such models with field data. More advanced machine learning (ML) techniques have not yet been applied to AS trajectories, leaving the potential of ML for capturing AS dynamics unexplored and constraining the development of dedicated AS models. Furthermore, there is a lack of a unified framework for systematically evaluating and comparing the performance of car-following models to replicate real trajectories. Existing car-following studies often rely on disparate metrics, which limit reproducibility and performance comparability. This study addresses these gaps through two main contributions: (1) the calibration of a diverse set of car-following models using real-world AS trajectory data, including eight machine learning algorithms and two physics-based models; and (2) the introduction of a multi-criteria evaluation framework that integrates measures of prediction accuracy, trajectory stability, and statistical similarity, which provides a generalizable methodology for a systematic assessment of car-following models. Results indicated that the proposed calibrated XGBoost model achieved the best overall performance. Sequential model type, such as LSTM and CNN, captured long-term positional stability but were less responsive to short-term dynamics. LSTM and CNN captured long-term positional stability but were less responsive to short-term dynamics. Traditional models (IDM, ACC) and kernel methods showed lower accuracy and stability than most ML models tested.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。