4.5 Article

Modelling the human lane-change execution behaviour through Multilayer Perceptrons and Convolutional Neural Networks

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.04.004

关键词

Driving behaviour; Lane change; Driver model; Computational intelligence; Convolutional neural network; Multilayer perceptron

资金

  1. Spanish Government through the CAV project [TRA2016-78886-C3-3-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Driving is a highly complex task that involves the execution of multiple cognitive tasks belonging to different levels of abstraction. Traffic emerges from the interaction of a big number of agents implementing those behaviours, but until recent years, modelling it by the interaction of these agents in the so called micro-simulators was a nearly impossible task as their number grows. However, with the growing computing power it is possible to model increasingly large quantities of individual vehicles according to their individual behaviours. These models are usually composed of two sub-models for two well-defined tasks: car-following and lane-change. In the case of lane-change the literature proposes many different models, but few of them use Computational Intelligence (CI) techniques, and much less use personalization for reaching individual granularity. This study explores one of the two aspects of the lane-change called lane-change acceptance, where the driver performs or not a lane-change given his intention and the vehicle environment. We demonstrate how the lane-change acceptance of a specific driver can be learned from his lane change intention and surrounding environment in an urban scenario using CI techniques such as feed-forward Artificial Neural Network (ANN). We work with Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) architectures. How they perform one against the other and how the different topologies affect both to the generalization of the problem and the learning process are studied. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据