Under review as a journal paper at T-IV

A Learning-based Stochastic MPC Design for
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control to Handle
Interfering Vehicles

arXiv:1802.09356v1 [] 26 Feb 2018

Hadi Kazemi, Hossein Nourkhiz Mahjoub, Amin Tahmasbi-Sarvestani, Yaser P. Fallah

other sources of information are required to provide more
accurate situational awareness within a broader neighboring
area. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication has been proposed to remove this barrier through its omnidirectional and
non-line of sight connectivity capabilities. Consequently, the
performance of safety applications is expected to substantially
improve by V2V communications. Currently, the most promising technology under consideration for V2V communication
is the Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) [16]
technology.
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) is one of the most demanding automated driving applications. In comparison with its
predecessor, i.e. conventional cruise control which had been
solely designed to provide a fluctuation-free driver-specified
velocity, ACC is also responsible for sustaining a certain level
of safety by continuously tracking the vehicle longitudinal
distance from its immediate leader and keeping this distance
within a safe range. One step ahead in cruise technology
would result in Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC),
which also leverages the V2V communication. This makes
it more powerful to simultaneously preclude collision and
maximize traffic throughput compared to ACC [17]. However,
many CACC challenges still exist which need to be addressed.
For instance, the CACC application should be robust against
other vehicles’ maneuvers such as unforeseen lane changes
[17]. Detection and appropriate reaction to these unexpected
vehicle maneuvers are among the most challenging tasks, even
in the normal driving situations and without CACC imposed
constraints. These challenging tasks reveal the criticality and
complexity of a well-behaved CACC design for these scenarios. Even though different theoretical and technical aspects of
CACC have been investigated by researchers [18], handling
interfering vehicles needs more elaborations.
In this paper, we specifically concentrate on cut-in maneuvers due to their imminent threat, as a vehicle in a stable
CACC platoon has to perform a hard brake reaction when
another vehicle makes a sudden lane change just in front of
it. This hard brake reaction is extremely dangerous and can
result in a severe crash [19], [20]. Thus, it is well-desired to
predict cut-in intention of other drivers in advance. Moreover,
cutting into the platoon deforms the platoon structure which
should be compensated by a proper CACC design. Therefore,
a meticulous CACC system should be able to both prevent
possible crashes and maintain the normal platoon formation
against entering vehicles from adjacent lanes.
Based on the above discussion, performance of CACC in

Abstract—Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication has a great
potential to improve reaction accuracy of different driver assistance systems in critical driving situations. Cooperative Adaptive
Cruise Control (CACC), which is an automated application,
provides drivers with extra benefits such as traffic throughput
maximization and collision avoidance. CACC systems must be
designed in a way that are sufficiently robust against all special
maneuvers such as cutting-into the CACC platoons by interfering
vehicles or hard braking by leading cars. To address this problem,
a Neural- Network (NN)-based cut-in detection and trajectory
prediction scheme is proposed in the first part of this paper.
Next, a probabilistic framework is developed in which the cut-in
probability is calculated based on the output of the mentioned cutin prediction block. Finally, a specific Stochastic Model Predictive
Controller (SMPC) is designed which incorporates this cut-in
probability to enhance its reaction against the detected dangerous
cut-in maneuver. The overall system is implemented and its
performance is evaluated using realistic driving scenarios from
Safety Pilot Model Deployment (SPMD).

I.

I NTRODUCTION

D

RIVERS are the most important and influential entities of non-autonomous vehicles in ground Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS). A revolutionary age of modern
driving has been initiated by the advent of safety and comfort
driving applications that aim at assisting drivers in vehicle
control. Forward collision warning [1]–[4], lane keep assistance [5]–[7], automatic braking [8], adaptive cruise control
[9], [10], efficiency [11], [12], and pedestrian safety [13]–[15]
systems are amongst the most important automated driving
applications. The first generation of safety applications was
designed by virtue of local sensors such as radars and cameras.
Local sensors provide a mediocre level of safety due to
their limited sensing range and data processing complexity.
Moreover, they noticeably underperform in the presence of
occluding obstacles. In order to handle these issues, some
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under CAREER
Grant Number 1664968.
Hadi Kazemi and Amin Tahmasbi-Sarvestani are PhD students with the
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA (e-mails: hakazemi@mix.wvu.edu
, amtahmasbi@mix.wvu.edu).
Hossein Nourkhiz Mahjoub is a PhD student with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando,
FL 32826 USA (e-mail: hnmahjoub@knights.ucf.edu).
Yaser P. Fallah is an associate professor with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826
USA (e-mail: yaser.fallah@ucf.edu).

1

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV
the controller which only acts based on the previous measurements without any predictive vision of driving scenario.
The prevailing methods in the literature for driver behavior
modeling, and some of the important proposed designs for
adaptive cruise controller are mentioned in this section.
One of the important research mainstreams in driver behavior modeling is based on utilizing classification methods,
such as Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Neural Network
(NN), to differentiate between distinguishable driver behaviors.
The main idea behind another major class of driver behavior
modeling schemes in the literature, such as Hidden Markov
Models (HMMs) and Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs),
is developing a probabilistic causal framework which tries to
find the next most likely driving maneuvers using available
data sequences from the driving history and then chain these
predicted consecutive maneuvers to construct the most probable future scenario.
Authors in [26] developed a hierarchical classifier for observed scenes of the host vehicle from remote vehicle’s lane
change. These scenes were then assigned to the nodes of
the hierarchy in the model to specify a pattern from the top
nodes to the leaves. However, their overall scheme is not
generalizable to other contexts, such as potential maneuver
alternatives, since it is remarkably specialized.
SVM-based methods are proposed to classify lateral actions
of drivers based on detection of preparatory behaviors, vehicle
dynamics, and the environmental data prior to and during
the maneuvers such as lane change [27]. A Relevance Vector
Machine (RVM), was employed in [28] to distinguish between
lane change and lane keeping maneuvers. In [29], feed forward
artificial neural networks are used to predict the trajectory of
the vehicle based on its movements history. The goal was to
study the possibility of accurate movement prediction for a
lane changing vehicle by an autonomous driving vehicle.
An Object-Oriented Bayesian Network (OOBN) is utilized
to recognize special highway driving maneuvers, such as
lane change [30]. This approach models different driving
maneuvers as vehicle-lane and vehicle-vehicle relations on
four hierarchical levels which can tolerate uncertainties in
both the model and the measurements. A finite set of driving
behaviors are classified and future trajectories of the vehicle
are predicted based on currently understood situational context
using a DBN-based model [31].
Hidden Markov model (HMM) technique has been widely
utilized to associate the observable time series of the vehicle
to the unobserved driver intentions sequence during his maneuvers [24], [25], [32]–[37]. Some pioneer works in driver
behavior modeling, [32], [33], proposed a decomposition of
driver behaviors into small scale and large scale categories.
Time sequence of unobserved large scale driver actions are
assumed to have Markovian property and HMM is suggested
as an acceptable method to model this sequence. This modeling
approach accuracy was validated by its results of the lane
change maneuver prediction. Sensory collected information
was used as the observation set in the designed HMM predictor.
Using the data from V2V communication, two HMMs were
utilized to discriminate different types of driver lane change

these critical driving scenarios is extremely reliant on the
accuracy of modeling other drivers behavior in the sense of
detecting their lane change intentions and predicting cut-in
path. This fact requires the introduction of a ”lane-change
monitoring block”, which performs the aforementioned functions, as an inseparable and essential part of our CACC
system. Specifically, our contributions in this work are listed
as follows:
• A learning-based driver behavior modeling sub-system
is proposed to accomplish an accurate lane change
prediction.
• A probabilistic framework is designed which employs
the results of the lane-change monitoring block and
translates it to a cut-in probability value.
• A new CACC Stochastic Model Predictive Controller
(SMPC) is developed which takes the cut-in probability
as its input. This SMPC controller is in charge of adjusting the dynamic parameters (mainly velocity and spacing
error) of the vulnerable vehicles inside the platoon. More
specifically, it minimizes the spacing error (deviations
from a predefined safe distance) between the vehicle and
its immediate vehicle ahead, while keeping their velocity
difference as close as possible to zero. Concurrently, it
responds appropriately to a cut-in maneuver.
• The overall system architecture is designed and represented as a Time-Triggered Stochastic Impulsive System (TTSIS) model [21], originated from the emerging
stochastic hybrid systems (SHS) methodology [21]–[23].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first cut-in resistant
CACC-SMPC design based on a real-time cut-in probability
calculation in the literature.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II is
devoted to related works on proposed driver behavior modeling
methods in the literature. The overall system description is
explained in section III in which sections III-A, III-B and
III-C state the details of our learning-based cut-in monitoring
block, proposed cut-in probability calculation approach based
on that, and the proposed SHS-based stochastic CACC MPC
framework, respectively. The overall system performance is
evaluated in section IV. Finally, section V concludes the paper.
II.

R ELATED W ORK

Driver is the main source of system stochasticity in most
of the ground ITS frameworks. Each maneuver of a vehicle is
an immediate and direct consequence of its driver’s intention,
which is applied by a specific set of mechanisms, such as
steering wheel, pedals, and handles [24]. The utilization of
these tools can be directly measured through Controller Area
Network (CAN). However, it is not possible to deterministically assign a maneuver to a specific pattern of these
parameters as different maneuvers may have partially similar
sections [25]. Therefore, a reliable approach is required to
discriminate different driving maneuvers based on measured
patterns of their parameters. The output of this stage could
then be utilized to design an application-specific controller.
This controller would obviously perform smarter compared to
2

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV
intent, namely dangerous and normal [25], [34]. A trajectory
prediction stage and an MPC controller were mounted on top
of the lane change prediction algorithm to manage reformation
of a new CACC string after cut-in.
A controller for a CACC string which takes into account
both V2V and non-V2V equipped vehicles was designed in
[17]. This controller tries to handle cut-in and cut-out scenarios
with a smooth reaction to the new condition of the host
vehicles lane. No prediction is performed in this work to detect
the cut-in or cut-out scenarios in advance. Another CACC
design based on switched sampled-data model is presented in
[18] which investigates the stability problem in the presence
of sensor failures.
In our work, a learning-based driver behavior modeling
method is combined with an MPC design in a probabilistic
manner to improve the overall CACC performance.
III.

Fig. 1.

Host vehicle, cut-in suspicious vehicle and bad-set

the vehicle in which the safe gap is violated. In other words,
our bad-set is a rectangle aligned to the road surface in front of
the host vehicle, while its longitudinal dimension, Lbs , depends
on the platoon speed and is equal to the desired longitudinal
safe gap and its lateral dimension, Wbs , is the lane width. The
front bumper of the host vehicle is always located at the center
of the bad-set rear lateral edge. These definitions are illustrated
in Fig. 1.
The goal of our lane-change monitoring block is tracking
and predicting the trajectory of all of the vehicles in the
adjacent lanes of the host vehicle. The model should not only
predict the immediate kinematics of the vehicles, but also the
high-level driving maneuvers. Therefore, the position of neighboring vehicles should be predicted for multiple future steps
based on their current and previous communicated information.
The number of required prediction steps is determined by the
duration of a complete high-level maneuver and denoted by
Sm . This multi-step prediction is then used to determine the
probability of unsafe lane change which is passed to the SMPC
for better estimation of the required inter-vehicle spacing gap.

S YSTEM D ESCRIPTION

In our framework, which is schematically depicted in Fig.
1, the vehicle inside the platoon, which is directly affected by
the cut-in suspicious vehicle, is referred to as the host vehicle.
The immediate vehicle in front of the host vehicle is known
as the preceding vehicle, and the first vehicle of the platoon
is the leading vehicle or leader. The dangerous area in front
of the host vehicle is referred to as bad-set. This area and its
dimensions will be discussed in details later.
Although, detection of cut-in by the vehicle itself is beneficial to some applications such as lane keep assist system
(LKAS) and blind spot warning (BSW), CACC and platooning
need the lane change maneuver to be detected remotely by
the host vehicle. The remote lane change detection is required
because the host vehicle should react in a timely manner to
avoid hazardous situations.
V2V communication periodically provides the parameters
of the cut-in suspicious vehicles via broadcasting basic safety
messages (BSM) [16], [38]. In our model, we assume that the
host vehicle, which is in a stable condition in the platoon,
periodically receives the BSMs of its surrounding vehicles
and continuously traces them prior to any probable cut-in
maneuver. From BSM part one of the SAE J2735 standard,
[38], we utilize the following parameters for our behavior modeling: latitude, longitude, elevation, speed, heading, steering
wheel angle, 4-way acceleration set, and the vehicle size. The
latitude, longitude, and elevation represent the location of the
vehicles center of gravity in the WGS-84 coordinate system.
The 4-way acceleration set consists of acceleration values in
3 orthogonal directions plus yaw rate, which are calculated
based on the assumption that the front of the vehicle is toward
the positive longitudinal axis, right side of it is the positive
lateral axis, and clockwise rotation as the positive yaw rate.
In CACC platooning, a safe longitudinal gap must be
continuously kept between every two consecutive vehicles.
The deviation from the safe gap, which is known as spacing
error, should remain as small as possible to reduce the risk of
collision and take the advantages of platoon formation, such as
lower fuel consumption and higher traffic throughput [39]. As
mentioned, we define bad-set as the dangerous area in front of

A. Lane Change Monitoring Block Design
Each lane change maneuver consists of four separate phases:
Intention phase, Preparation phase, Transition phase, and the
Completion phase [40], [41]. It is worth mentioning that some
more complicated maneuvers, such as overtaking, have also
been investigated in the literature. For instance two-phase and
five-phase overtake modeling frameworks are proposed in [42]
and [43], respectively. The lateral acceleration and lateral speed
in a lane change maneuver are bounded by the comfortable lateral acceleration threshold and the maximum tolerable lateral
speed, respectively [44]. To safeguard a smooth transition of
the vehicle between lanes, the acceleration is bounded by -0.2g
and 0.2g [45]. Our model is designed to not only predict the
immediate kinematics of the vehicles in the transition phase
but also the complete four-phase lane change maneuvers. The
trajectory of each remote vehicle is modeled as a time series. In
our model, we separate the learning of lateral and longitudinal
behaviors of the driver as they are influenced by different
control inputs.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are one of the most famous tools for description and prediction of nonlinear systems
[46], [47]. Neural networks with hidden units can principally
predict any well-behaved function. In the case of time series,
in order to handle the dependency of the prediction to a finite
set of past values and time varying nature of the input signals,
neural network topologies need to be equipped with a short
3

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV

Fig. 3.

Procedure of cut-in probability (Pc ) calculation

To mitigate the effect of noise, small variations of input
signals, based on the nature of the signal, are filtered to
smooth the time series and mitigate the effect of noise.
Variation smaller than 3 degrees, 0.1 rad, 0.1 m/s, and 0.1
m/s2 are removed from steering wheel angle, heading, speed,
and longitudinal acceleration, respectively. The resulting input
signals during one maneuver is shown in Fig. 2.
All of our ANNs have a hidden layer with 20 nodes and
15 step short term memory, which means that they are using
the past information of 1.5 seconds for future prediction. The
required prediction steps are also set to 10 steps for all of
the ANNs, Sm = 10, which means that the we are predicting
the behavior of the driver for 1 second in the future, since
the driver can change his decision and behavior beyond this
time [48]. As mentioned before, the NAR is used to model
the patterns of input signals to the system. The NARX and
RNN are used to model and predict the longitudinal and
lateral position of the vehicle, respectively. The longitudinal
position of the vehicle is modeled based on the predicted
values of heading, speed, and longitudinal acceleration as
external inputs. On the other hand, the RNN should not only
predict the future lateral position of the vehicle, but should also
distinguish between different lateral maneuvers. Therefore, the
lateral model is also trained with some curve road data to be
able to differentiate between different lateral movements.

Fig. 2. Smoothed, Normalized, and Integrated input signals of a single lane
change maneuver

term memory mechanism which is called the feedback delay.
In this work, we used feedback delay- based ANNs, namely
nonlinear autoregressive (NAR), nonlinear autoregressive exogenous (NARX) and recurrent neural networks (RNN) toward
driver behavior and lane change prediction.
NARX is a neural network with feedback delay that can be
trained and used to predict a time series from its past values
and an exogenous one, in spite of NAR which does not rely
on any external inputs. We use NAR model to predict the
future pattern of different system inputs, i.e. steering wheel
angle, yaw rate, heading, speed, and longitudinal acceleration,
based on their currently available values. A NARX model is
employed to predict the longitudinal trajectory of the vehicle
during the lane change using some of the previously estimated
sequences of input signals as the exogenous input. The exogenous inputs in our framework are yaw rate, heading, speed,
and longitudinal acceleration.
Finally, an RNN is adopted to model the lateral trajectory
of the vehicle based on the predicted input signals. RNNs can
use their internal memory to process arbitrary sequences of
inputs. The input signals to our lateral position prediction RNN
are steering wheel angle, yaw rate, and heading. Using the
internal memory, the RNN can distinguish between different
maneuvers with partially similar input signals. For example, a
steering due to the road curvature might look partially similar
to the one from lane change maneuver, but the RNN can learn
to distinguish between these two maneuvers by looking at a
longer history of the signals or other input signals, such as
road curvature. In the former case, the RNN should also be
trained on other maneuvers which share the same input signal
patterns in a portion of their lifetime.
All of the ANN models are batch trained and the training
phase is offline due to the low computational cost of batch
training and insufficient accessible data for online training.
In order to use the full capability of neural networks, the
input signals for all ANNs are normalized to [-1, 1] range.
Then, the input signals are differenced to remove the linearity
and improve the nonlinearity prediction process. The resulting
time series is known as integrated time series. The value of
predicted location can be reconstructed by adding the first
actual value to the estimated difference in the series.

B. Cut-in Probability Calculation
The results of the proposed cut-in prediction scheme is now
applied to find a single value between 0 and 1 which represents
the overall cut-in probability. This probability, which is denoted by Pc from now on, will be fed to our SMPC as its input.
SMPC design details are discussed in the following subsection.
At each prediction cycle we have Sm predicted future values
for each of the longitudinal and lateral relative positions of
the suspicious cut-in vehicle. In our implementation, each of
these 2×Sm predicted values comes with a specific 90 percent
confidence level. Hence, we have Sm rectangular areas, each
of them determines the predicted area for the position of the
cut-in vehicle in the corresponding upcoming time step with
90 percent accuracy. We take the most conservative approach
to define the cut-in probability, Pc as follows:
• Each of these Sm rectangles, (A in Fig. 3), is intersected
with the host vehicle’s bad-set at that moment and its
intersection area, (A1 in Fig. 3), is calculated.
• The resultant intersection area, (A1 ), is normalized by
dividing it by the corresponding predicted area value,
4

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV
(A), to calculate the probability value of being inside
the bad-set for each of these predictions.
• The maximum value amongst these Sm probabilities is
selected as the Pc value for that prediction cycle.
For more clarification, this procedure for the ith step prediction, (1 ≤ i ≤ Sm ), is depicted in Fig. 3. In this paper,
one second ahead prediction is targeted which is equivalent to
Sm = 10, due to the DSRC baseline information broadcasting
frequency (10 Hz). It is worth mentioning that this frequency
could be easily supported by most of the currently available
commercial GPSs like what is used in this work’s dataset [49].

keep the velocity of the host vehicle as close as possible to its
preceding vehicle velocity, and finally, respond appropriately to
a cut-in vehicle based on our prediction of the driver behavior.
To this end, the system dynamics (6) is discretized and an
optimal control problem, which satisfies the aforementioned
control goals, is defined. The continuous time dynamics of the
system is discretized using the Euler forward method with a
time step Ts :
ẋi [k + 1] = Aki xi [k] + Bik ui [k] + Gki āi−1 [k]
where

1
Aki = 0
0

C. CACC-Stochastic Model Predictive Controller Design
Considering a CACC platoon of vehicles, the spacing error
of the ith following vehicle is defined as follows [45]:
δi = xi−1 − xi − hvi − Li − d0

Then, the linearized dynamics of the i
modeled as follows [45]:

with state vector

0
Ai = 0
0

ai ]T , and


" #
0
−h
0
−1  Bi =  0  Gi = 1
− ζ1i
− ζ1i
0

x = [δi
1
0
0

cδ δ 2 [k + i] + cv ∆v 2 [k + i] + cu ∆u2 [k + i]
(10)

=

N
−1
X

[xT [k + i|k]Qx[k + i|k] + uT [k + i|k]Ru[k + i|k]]

i=0

where N is the control horizon, cδ , cv , and cu are weighting
coefficients reflecting the relative importance of each term and
∆u[k + n] = u[k + n] − u[k + n − 1]

(3)
(4)

(11)

which is added to the cost function as an extra term to bound
the jerk and prevent fast variations of the input signal. This
constraint could be interpreted as comfort ride. The MPC law
finds the optimal input sequence u∗ [k] which minimizes the
predicted cost function (10) at each time instant:

(5)

where ζi is the engine time constant, ai is the acceleration
of the ith vehicle, and ui is an input signal which comes
from an MPC controller. However, due to the communication
delay each vehicle receives the delayed version of its preceding vehicle’s acceleration value. Denoting the communicated
acceleration of ith vehicle at receivers by āi (t), the state space
equation of a vehicle in a CACC system could be represented
as follows
ẋi (t) = Ai xi (t) + Bi ui (t) + Gi āi−1 (t)




" #
−hTs
0
0
−Ts  Bik =  0  Gki = Ts
(9)
1 − Tζis
− Tζis
0

i=0

following vehicle is

δ̇i = vi−1 − vi − hv̇i
∆v̇i = ai−1 − ai
ai
ui
ȧi = − +
ζi
ζi

N
−1
X

J[k] =

(2)
th

Ts
1
0

Hereinafter, for simplicity of notation, we use A, B, G, x, and
u instead of Aki , Bik , Gki , xi , and ui , respectively. The cost
function of the optimal control problem is defined based on
the primary objectives of the controller:

(1)

for all i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}, where xi and vi are longitudinal
position and velocity of the ith following vehicle, respectively
(x0 stands for the longitudinal position of the lead vehicle); h
headway which introduces a speed dependent spacing policy
in addition to d0 which is a constant minimum desired distance
between each vehicle and its preceding vehicle in the platoon,
and Li is the length of the ith vehicle. Based on these
definitions, longitudinal dimension of the bad-set, Lbs , for ith
vehicle could be represented as:
Lbs = hvi + d0

(8)

u∗ [k] = arg min J[k]
u
xmin ≤ x[k + i|k] ≤ xmax
subject to
umin ≤ u[k + i|k] ≤ umax

(12)
i = 1, . . . , N − 1

To solve this MPC problem, the future values of the preceding
vehicle’s acceleration are required. These values are obtained
from the aforementioned NAR neural network.
1) Conventional MPC Design: In this section, MPC design
problem without incorporating the calculated cut-in probability, Pc , is investigated. We referred to this MPC design as
conventional design in this paper. The values of ai−1 [k] could
be considered as a measured disturbance when its model is
available to the MPC controller. Then, the system equations
could be rewritten in the standard form as

(6)

∆vi


(7)

However, delay of the communication network is not considered in this work, so āi−1 (t) = ai−1 (t).
An MPC controller with three primary objectives is required
to control the platoon system described by (6). The controller
must compute the input signal ui to minimize the spacing error,

x̄[k + 1] = Āx̄[k] + B̄u[k]
(13)

T
where x̄[k] = x[k], v[k]
is the augmented state vector and the measured disturbance state vector v[k] =
5

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV



v0 , v1 , . . . vN −1 is defined as
v0 [k + 1] = v1 [k]
v1 [k + 1] = v2 [k]
..
.
vN −2 [k + 1] = vN −1 [k]
vN −1 [k + 1] = vN −1 [k]

•


v0 [0] = ai−1 [0]




v1 [0] = ai−1 [1]
..
.




vN −2 [0] = ai−1 [N − 2]


v
N −1 [0] = ai−1 [N − 1]

Ω is invariant in the second mode of (15) which means
x[k+N |k] ∈ Ω

⇒

(A+BK)x[k+N |k] ∈ Ω (19)

It is shown that the largest possible Ω is derived by
Ω = {x : umin ≤ K(A + BK)i x ≤ umax ,
(20)
i
xmin ≤ (A + BK) x ≤ xmax , i = 0, 1, . . . }
To show that Ω is invariant over the infinite horizon of the
second mode of (15), constraint satisfaction should be checked
over a long enough finite horizon (Nc ). Here, Nc is the smallest
number which satisfies the following equations

u = minx K(A + BK)Nc +1 x
(21)
u = maxx K(A + BK)Nc +1 x

In the receding horizon implementation of the MPC problem
(12), only the first element of the optimal input sequence u∗ [k]
is selected as the input to the system and the whole process
is repeated at each time step. However, designing a receding
horizon controller based on a finite-horizon cost function does
not guarantee the stability and optimality of the closed loop
system [50]. This problem can be avoided by defining an
infinite prediction horizon for the cost function:
∞
X
J[k] =
[xT [k + i|k]Qx[k + i|k] + uT [k + i|k]Ru[k + i|k]]

such that

umin ≤ K(A + BK)i x ≤ umax
umin ≤ u ≤ umax

i=0

(14)

i = 0, . . . , Nc

(22)

Having Nc found, adding the following constraints to the MPC
problem guarantees the feasibility of the controller:

However, to have finite number of variables in the MPC
optimization problem, a dual-mode prediction approach can
be utilized in which the predicted input sequence is defined as
 ∗
u [k + i|k] i = 0, 1, ..., N − 1
u[k + i|k] =
(15)
Kx[k + i|k] i = N, N + 1, ...

umin ≤ K(A + BK)i x[k + N |k] ≤ umax ,
xmin ≤ (A + BK)i x[k + N |k] ≤ xmax ,
i = 0, 1, . . . , Nc

(23)

2) MPC design: Incorporating cut-in probability: The designed MPC controller in the previous section satisfies our
first two primary goals, namely spacing error and velocity
error minimization. However, the controller should be able
to react appropriately if a cut-in suspicious vehicle enters the
platoon unexpectedly and pushes the host vehicle to decelerate
to reestablish the safe distance.
Heretofore, the probability of the suspicious vehicle’s cutin trajectory intersection with the host vehicle’s bad-set has
been determined. Based on this, we propose a new stochastic
definition for the spacing error:

Then, by choosing a terminal weighting matrix, denoted by Q̄,
in a way that xT [k+N |k]Q̄x[k+N |k] is equal to the cost over
the second mode of the predicted input sequence, the infinite
cost J can be rewritten as
N
−1
X
J[k] =
[xT [k + i|k]Qx[k + i|k]
(16)
i=0

+ uT [k + i|k]Ru[k + i|k]] + xT [k + N |k]Q̄x[k + N |k]
Theorem 1: (Stability) The state variables of system (13),
x[k], asymptotically converge to zero, i.e. the system is asymptotically stable, under the control law (15) if predicted cost J[k]
is an infinite cost, (A, Q12 ) is observable, and the tail ũ[k] is
feasible for all k > 0 where


ũ[k + 1] = u∗ [k + 1|k], . . . , Kx∗ [k + N |k]
(17)

δi =

xi−1 − xi
− hvi − Li − d0
2 − e−αPc

(24)

where Pc is the probability of the cut-in vehicle being in the
bad- set of the host vehicle, and is a constant control parameter
which adjusts the reaction sensitivity of the MPC controller
to the cut-in probability. Clearly, when the probability is
one, assuming α has been set to a sufficiently large number,
the controller starts doubling the distance from its current
preceding vehicle by halving the enumerator of the first term
in the proposed equation for spacing error, (24). Consequently,
the cut-in vehicle has enough safe gap to enter the CACC
platoon. On the contrary, when the probability is zero, the
suspicious vehicle is not expected to cut in or it has the safe
distance from the host vehicle for its maneuver. This zero
probability sets the denominator of (24) to one, which means
the host vehicle keeps the normal safe distance, hvi +d0 , from
its preceding vehicle.
Although the stability and feasibility of the controller is
already guaranteed for the MPC design with deterministic

Therefore, selecting Q and Q̄ which satisfy the first two
conditions, the stability and convergence of the closed loop
system rely on the assumption that tail ũ[k] is feasible for all
k > 0. To this end, a set of extra constraints on the state vector
should be satisfied at each time instant k.
Theorem 2: (Recursive feasibility) The MPC optimization
(12) with the cost function J[k] defined in (16) is guaranteed to
be feasible at all time k > 0 if a new constraint x[k+N |k] ∈ Ω
is met, provided it is feasible at k = 0 and terminal constraint
set Ω satisfies
• The following constraints are satisfied for all points in
Ω, ( i.e. x[k + N |k] ∈ Ω)

umin ≤ Kx[k + N |k] ≤ umax
(18)
xmin ≤ x[k + N |k] ≤ xmax
6

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV

A hybrid model for the system incorporating the cut in probability

(a)

Fig. 5. Comparison of 90-percentile conf. interval of the Kinematic and
RNN models for different prediction steps. (a) Lateral and (b) Longitudinal
predictions

spacing error, it should be proved under the new circumstances
due to the stochastic spacing error definition.
To this end, utilizing a Stochastic Hybrid System (SHS)
design is beneficial. A Time-Triggered Stochastic Impulsive
System (TTSIS) SHS model, [21], incorporating the probability of an upcoming cut, is utilized to this end as shown in Fig.
(4).
In this model, p ∈ [0, 1] is a random variable which
represents the cut-in probability, G(p) is a guard condition
that must be hold for the discrete transition (time trigger), and
R(x, p) is a reset function which describes the changes in the
continuous states after the transition. The stochastic nature of
our system comes from the dependency of the guard on the
random variable p.
Proposition 1: The TTSIS of Fig (4) is stable under the
designed MPC controller if the following condition is satisfied:
• There is a finite invariant region SR in which
x[k] ∈ SR → R(x[k], p) ∈ SR
∀p ∈ [0, 1]. xmin ≤ x[k] ≤ xmax

(b)

Cut-in Probability (5.5 Sec Cut-in)

Cut-in Probability

1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Cut-in Probability (3 Sec Cut-in)
1

Cut-in Probability

Cut-in Probability

Fig. 4.

0

20

40

60

Cut-in Probability

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0

Time (100 ms)

10

20

30

40

Time (100 ms)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Cut-in Probability, Pc , for the proposed SMPC controller (a) an
average 5.5-sec maneuver and (b) a harsh 3-sec maneuver

−10m/s2 [51], to prevent the collision) or the maximum predefined acceleration of the vehicle till the feasibility of the
controller can be guaranteed again.

(25)

The region SR is a subset of the region of attraction for the
MPC law, denoted by SΩ (SR ⊂ SΩ ). Here, SΩ is defined as
the set of all initial states from which a sequence of inputs
exists that forces the state predictions to reach the terminal
constraint set in the first mode of control law (15), i.e.


 x[0] :  ∃u[0], x[N |0] ∈ Ω,
SΩ =
xmin ≤ x[i|0] ≤ xmax , ∀i ≤ N

 s.t.
umin ≤ u[i|0] ≤ umax , ∀i ≤ N − 1
(26)
Therefore, to guarantee the stability of the system over a
larger set of conditions, the constraints on the system states
should be relieved as much as the safety is not violated.
To this end, we set the constraint on the spacing error to
[δmin , δmax ] ∈ (−hvi − Li − d0 + δs , +∞) for the case of
no cut-in detected, where δs is the minimum desired safe gap
between the vehicles. Clearly, after each discrete transition,
the value of spacing error can only jump with a value between
−hvi − Li − d0 and hvi + Li + d0 . However, for the case
of a positive cut-in probability, we should choose a more
conservative constraint, [δmin , δmax ] ∈ (−hvi − Li − d0 +
(xi−1 −xrv )+δs , +∞) to assure the collision avoidance where
xrv is the position of the cut-in suspicious vehicle. Finally, if
the is no constraint found which can guarantee the feasibility,
the driving situation is considered as an unsafe or a harsh
maneuver and the controller temporarily is overwritten with
ui set to the maximum possible deceleration (usually up to

IV.

E VALUATION

In this section overall performance of the proposed system
framework is evaluated using realistic driving scenarios from
Safety Pilot Model Deployment (SPMD) dataset [49]. First,
the practicality of our cut-in trajectory prediction method is
shown by its performance comparison versus the kinematicbased trajectory prediction as a ground truth. Next, noticeable
better behavior of the proposed SMPC controller versus the
conventional MPC is discussed.
A. Cut-in Trajectory Prediction Performance Evaluation
To evaluate the performance of our method, we extracted
90 lane change maneuvers from the BSMs generated by participating vehicles in SPMD dataset in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
BSM broadcast rate had been set to 10Hz in this dataset. Therefore, we have all of the time series recorded in this rate. The
signals from all 90 maneuvers are concatenated to create a long
univariate time series for each input signal. Finally, a 70-15-15
percent training, cross-validation, and testing data selection is
used for ANNs training and performance evaluation.
The performance of two trajectory prediction methods, vehicle kinematic model, and our trained RNN, for a lane changing
vehicle in terms of lateral confidence levels at each time step
ahead, averaged on all 90 scenarios, are shown in Fig. 5(a).
7

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV
V.

The classic car model could be represented by kinematic-based
differential equations as follows:
vi
ẋi = vi cos θi ,
ẏi = vi sin θi ,
θ̇i =
tan φi (27)
Li
where xi , yi , and vi are longitudinal position, lateral position,
and velocity of the ith vehicle, respectively. Also, φi denotes
the steering angle, θi stands for the angel between the vehicle’s
instantaneous heading and the road direction, and Li = 5 is
the length of the vehicle [52].
Fig. 5(b) shows the same comparison for the longitudinal
position prediction.

C ONCLUSION

In this paper, a probabilistic framework for handling cutin maneuvers into a CACC platoon is proposed and its better
performance compared to the conventional controller design
is demonstrated. At the first step of the designed procedure,
a cut-in maneuver of an interfering vehicle is detected and
its trajectory is predicted using a novel three-layer neural
network-based approach. The high accuracy of this method
is demonstrated by comparing its results against the state of
the art Kinematic-based deterministic models. Afterwards, the
output of this phase is utilized to calculate the probability
of cut-in predicted trajectory overlap with the host vehicles
bad-set area. This probability, which is referred to as cutin probability, specifies the severity level of the dangerous
situation caused by a sudden cut-in into the stable CACC
platoon. Obviously, higher values of this probability need more
urgent reactions from the host vehicles controller to prevent the
possible collision with a smooth and safe reaction. This goal
is achieved by giving this probability to a new stochastic MPC
controller, designed based on the emerging SHS concept. The
overall performance of the designed system is evaluated and its
effectiveness for better regulation of the host vehicles reaction
to dangerous cut-in situations is discussed using realistic cut-in
driving scenarios from SPMD dataset.

B. Designed SMPC Performance Evaluation
In this section, superiority of designed SMPC versus conventional MPC is investigated. To this end, reactions of these two
different designs to real cut-in maneuvers should be compared.
A general cut-in maneuver duration is between 3.5-6.5 seconds
for urban scenarios with the mean of 5 seconds and 3.5-8.5
seconds for highway scenarios with the mean of 5.8 seconds
[53]. For the sake of comparison fairness, two types of cut-in
maneuvers, i.e. the harshest type with 3.5 seconds duration,
and the average class with 5.5 seconds duration, have been
selected and the outputs of two aforementioned controllers are
compared in each case. In both cases, the platoon velocity is
assumed 27 m/s or 60 mph.
Cut-in probabilities, calculated based on the discussed
method in section III-B, for average and harsh maneuvers are
depicted in Fig. 6. As mentioned before, these probabilities are
fed into our SMPC controller at each prediction cycle. The
vertical dashed lines in both figures stand for the moments
at which the cut-in vehicles cross the road line between two
adjacent lanes. It is clear that our cut-in detection starts around
1.25 seconds and 2 seconds ahead of this moment for harsh and
average maneuvers, respectively, which provides a noticeable
extra reaction time for the controller.
Fig. 7, illustrates the changes in spacing error, velocity and
acceleration of the host vehicle produced by two different
controllers in response to the average cut-in maneuver. It is
noteworthy that our controller starts its reaction to compensate the situation notably sooner than the conventional one
which results in a noticeable smoother reaction. In addition,
it highly increases the reaction safety as a consequence of its
considerable lower maximum spacing error which is evident
by comparing the spacing error in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b). For
instance, as it is clear in Fig. 7(a), the worst SMPC spacing
error reaches 10 meters, while its counterpart in conventional
MPC system is around 17 meters. Moreover, the spacing error
of the SMPC controller is around 6 meters when the suspicious
vehicle entered the CACC lane while in conventional MPC it
is on its maximum value of 17 meters. Finally, the SMPC cutin detection starts around 2 seconds from the beginning of the
scenario, which gives the controller about 2 seconds additional
reaction time in comparison with the conventional system.
The same plots for harsh maneuver, which are depicted in
Figs. 7(b), 7(d), and 7(f), demonstrate the dominance of the
proposed SMPC performance in terms of sooner and safer
reaction.

R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

8

R. Kiefer, M. Cassar, C. Flannagan, D. LeBlanc, M. Palmer, R. Deering,
and M. Shulman, “Forward collision warning requirements project:
refining the CAMP crash alert timing approach by examining” lastsecond” braking and lane change maneuvers under various kinematic
conditions,” Tech. Rep., 2003.
S. M. Iranmanesh, E. Moradi-Pari, Y. P. Fallah, S. Das, and M. Rizwan,
“Robustness of cooperative forward collision warning systems to communication uncertainty,” in Systems Conference (SysCon), 2016 Annual
IEEE. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–7.
J. Wang, L. Zhang, D. Zhang, and K. Li, “An adaptive longitudinal
driving assistance system based on driver characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–12,
2013.
J. Wang, C. Yu, S. E. Li, and L. Wang, “A forward collision warning
algorithm with adaptation to driver behaviors,” IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1157–1167, 2016.
F. Breyer, C. Blaschke, B. Farber, J. Freyer, and R. Limbacher, “Negative behavioral adaptation to lane-keeping assistance systems,” IEEE
Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 21–32,
2010.
C. Liu, A. Carvalho, G. Schildbach, and J. K. Hedrick, “Stochastic
predictive control for lane keeping assistance systems using a linear
time-varying model,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2015.
IEEE, 2015, pp. 3355–3360.
A. Benine-Neto, S. Scalzi, S. Mammar, and M. Netto, “Dynamic
controller for lane keeping and obstacle avoidance assistance system,”
in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th International
IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1363–1368.
T. Wada, S. Hiraoka, S. Tsutsumi, and S. Doi, “Effect of activation
timing of automatic braking system on driver behaviors,” in SICE
Annual Conference 2010, Proceedings of. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1366–1369.
A. Vahidi and A. Eskandarian, “Research advances in intelligent collision avoidance and adaptive cruise control,” IEEE transactions on
intelligent transportation systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 143–153, 2003.

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV

HV Spacing Error (5.5 Sec Cut-in)

HV Spacing Error (3 Sec Cut-in)

0

HV Velocity (5.5 Sec Cut-in)

27

0

-5

-10

-15

10

20

-10

-15

Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC
0

-5

Velocity (m/s)

Spacing Error (m)

Spacing Error (m)

26

30

40

50

60

70

10

24
23
22

Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC
0

25

20

30

40

21

50

50

60

70

(b) Spacing error in a harsh 3-sec cut-in maneuver

(c) Velocity in an average 5.5-sec cut-in maneuver

HV Velocity (3 Sec Cut-in)

HV Acceleration (5.5 Sec Cut-in)

3

HV Acceleration (3 Sec Cut-in)

3
2

)

24
23

10

)
2

0
-1
-2
-3
Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC

-4

Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC
0

1

Acceleration (m/s

2

Acceleration (m/s

Velocity (m/s)

25

21

-5
20

30

40

50

0

10

20

1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4

30

40

50

60

70

-5

Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (100 ms)

Time (100 ms)

Time (100 ms)

(d) Velocity in a harsh 3-sec cut-in maneuver

(e) acceleration in an average 5.5-sec cut-in
maneuver

(f) acceleration in a harsh 3-sec cut-in maneuver

Fig. 7.

Comparison of spacing error, velocity, and acceleration of the proposed SMPC (Blue) and the conventional MPC (Red)

E. Moradi-Pari, H. N. Mahjoub, H. Kazemi, Y. P. Fallah, and
A. Tahmasbi-Sarvestani, “Utilizing model-based communication and
control for cooperative automated vehicle applications,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2017.

[20]

C. F. Minett, A. M. Salomons, W. Daamen, B. Van Arem, and S. Kuijpers, “Eco-routing: comparing the fuel consumption of different routes
between an origin and destination using field test speed profiles and
synthetic speed profiles,” in Integrated and Sustainable Transportation
System (FISTS), 2011 IEEE Forum on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 32–39.

[12]

H. Kazemi, Y. P. Fallah, A. Nix, and S. Wayne, “Predictive AECMS
by utilization of intelligent transportation systems for hybrid electric
vehicle powertrain control,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 75–84, 2017.

[13]

A. L. Rosado, S. Chien, L. Li, Q. Yi, Y. Chen, and R. Sherony,
“Certainty and critical speed for decision making in tests of pedestrian
automatic emergency braking systems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1358–1370, 2017.

[16]

40

(a) Spacing error in an average 5.5-sec cut-in
maneuver

22

[15]

30

Time (100 ms)

26

[14]

20

Time (100 ms)

2

[11]

10

Time (100 ms)

27

[10]

Conventional MPC
Proposed SMPC
0

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

A. Tahmasbi-Sarvestani, H. Kazemi, Y. P. Fallah, M. Naserian, and
A. Lewis, “System architecture for cooperative vehicle-pedestrian safety
applications using DSRC communication,” SAE Technical Paper, Tech.
Rep., 2015.

[25]

A. Tahmasbi-Sarvestani, H. N. Mahjoub, Y. P. Fallah, E. Moradi-Pari,
and O. Abuchaar, “Implementation and evaluation of a cooperative
vehicle-to-pedestrian safety application,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 62–75, 2017.

[26]

J. B. Kenney, “Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) standards in the united states,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 7, pp.
1162–1182, 2011.

[27]

[17]

V. Milanés and S. E. Shladover, “Handling cut-in vehicles in strings
of cooperative adaptive cruise control vehicles,” Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 178–191, 2016.

[28]

[18]

G. Guo and W. Yue, “Sampled-data cooperative adaptive cruise control
of vehicles with sensor failures,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2404–2418, 2014.

[29]

[19]

J. D. S. Basav Sen and W. G. Najm, “Analysis of lane change crashes:

9

(report no. dot hs 809 571).” Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2003.
S. E. Shladover, C. Nowakowski, X.-Y. Lu, and R. Ferlis, “Cooperative
adaptive cruise control: definitions and operating concepts,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
no. 2489, pp. 145–152, 2015.
J. P. Hespanha, “Modeling and analysis of networked control systems
using stochastic hybrid systems,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 38,
no. 2, pp. 155–170, 2014.
H. A. Blom and J. Lygeros, “Stochastic hybrid systems(theory and
safety critical applications),” Lecture notes in control and information
sciences, 2006.
C. Cassandras and J. Lygeros, “Stochastic hybrid systems: Recent
developments and research trends. number 24 in control engineering
series,” 2006.
N. Oliver and A. P. Pentland, “Graphical models for driver behavior
recognition in a smartcar,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2000. IV
2000. Proceedings of the IEEE. IEEE, 2000, pp. 7–12.
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 Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 942–947.
S. Bonnin, F. Kummert, and J. Schmüdderich, “A generic concept of a
system for predicting driving behaviors,” in Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITSC), 2012 15th International IEEE Conference on. IEEE,
2012, pp. 1803–1808.
H. M. Mandalia and M. D. D. Salvucci, “Using support vector machines
for lane-change detection,” in Proceedings of the human factors and
ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 49, no. 22. SAGE Publications
Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2005, pp. 1965–1969.
B. Morris, A. Doshi, and M. Trivedi, “Lane change intent prediction for
driver assistance: On-road design and evaluation,” in Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium (IV), 2011 IEEE. IEEE, 2011, pp. 895–901.
R. S. Tomar, S. Verma, and G. S. Tomar, “Prediction of lane change
trajectories through neural network,” in Computational Intelligence and

Under review as a journal paper at T-IV
[50]

B. Kouvaritakis and M. Cannon, Model predictive control: Classical,
robust and stochastic. Springer, 2015.
[51] O. Gietelink, J. Ploeg, B. De Schutter, and M. Verhaegen, “Development
of advanced driver assistance systems with vehicle hardware-in-the-loop
simulations,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 569–590,
2006.
[52] J.-P. Laumond, S. Sekhavat, and F. Lamiraux, “Guidelines in nonholonomic motion planning for mobile robots,” Robot motion planning and
control, pp. 1–53, 1998.
[53] L. Tijerina, W. Garrott, M. Glecker, D. Stoltzfus, and E. Parmer, “Van
and passenger car driver eye glance behavior during the lane change
decision phase,” in Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, 2005.

Communication Networks (CICN), 2010 International Conference on.
IEEE, 2010, pp. 249–253.
[30]

D. Kasper, G. Weidl, T. Dang, G. Breuel, A. Tamke, A. Wedel, and
W. Rosenstiel, “Object-oriented bayesian networks for detection of lane
change maneuvers,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine,
vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 19–31, 2012.
[31] T. Gindele, S. Brechtel, and R. Dillmann, “A probabilistic model
for estimating driver behaviors and vehicle trajectories in traffic environments,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th
International IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1625–1631.
[32] A. Pentland and A. Liu, “Modeling and prediction of human behavior,”
Neural computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 229–242, 1999.
[33] N. Kuge, T. Yamamura, O. Shimoyama, and A. Liu, “A driver behavior
recognition method based on a driver model framework,” SAE Technical
Paper, Tech. Rep., 2000.
[34] P. Liu and Ü. Özgüner, “Predictive control of a vehicle convoy considering lane change behavior of the preceding vehicle,” in American
Control Conference (ACC), 2015. IEEE, 2015, pp. 4374–4379.
[35]

H. Berndt, J. Emmert, and K. Dietmayer, “Continuous driver intention
recognition with hidden markov models,” in Intelligent Transportation
Systems, 2008. ITSC 2008. 11th International IEEE Conference on.
IEEE, 2008, pp. 1189–1194.
[36] M. Mori, C. Miyajima, T. Hirayama, N. Kitaoka, and K. Takeda,
“Integrated modeling of driver gaze and vehicle operation behavior to
estimate risk level during lane changes,” in Intelligent Transportation
Systems-(ITSC), 2013 16th International IEEE Conference on. IEEE,
2013, pp. 2020–2025.
[37]

D. Mitrovic, “Reliable method for driving events recognition,” IEEE
transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
198–205, 2005.

[38]

“SAE international,” Standard, Surface Vehicle, SAE Standard J2735 201601, Jan., 2016.
[39] S. Tsugawa, S. Jeschke, and S. E. Shladover, “A review of truck platooning projects for energy savings,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Vehicles, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 68–77, 2016.
[40] A. Kanaris, E. B. Kosmatopoulos, and P. A. Loannou, “Strategies and
spacing requirements for lane changing and merging in automated
highway systems,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 50,
no. 6, pp. 1568–1581, 2001.
[41] B. K. Chaurasia and S. Verma, “Haste induced behavior and VANET
communication,” in Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), 2009
IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 19–24.
[42] E. N. Barmpounakis, E. I. Vlahogianni, and J. C. Golias, “Decision trees
and meta-algorithms for revealing powered two wheelers’ overtaking
patterns,” Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, 2017.
[43] T. Wilson and W. Best, “Driving strategies in overtaking,” Accident
Analysis & Prevention, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 179–185, 1982.
[44]
[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]
[49]

D. Caveney, “Cooperative vehicular safety applications,” IEEE Control
Systems, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 38–53, 2010.
D. Yanakiev and I. Kanellakopoulos, “Nonlinear spacing policies for
automated heavy-duty vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1365–1377, 1998.
A. Khosroshahi, E. Ohn-Bar, and M. M. Trivedi, “Surround vehicles
trajectory analysis with recurrent neural networks,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on.
IEEE, 2016, pp. 2267–2272.
J. T. Connor, R. D. Martin, and L. E. Atlas, “Recurrent neural networks and robust time series prediction,” IEEE transactions on neural
networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 240–254, 1994.
A. Liu and D. Salvucci, “Modeling and prediction of human driver
behavior,” in Intl. Conference on HCI, 2001.
D. Bezzina and J. Sayer, “Safety pilot model deployment: Test conductor team report (Report No. DOT HS 812 171).” Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015.

10

