基于前车换道意图的自适应巡航控制目标车辆选择算法

Target Vehicle Selection Algorithm for Adaptive Cruise Control Based on Lane-changing Intention of Preceding Vehicle

基于前车换道意图的自适应巡航控制目标车辆选择算法

Abstract To improve the ride comfort and safety of a traditional adaptive cruise control (ACC) system when the preceding vehicle changes lanes, it proposes a target vehicle selection algorithm based on the prediction of the lane-changing intention for the preceding vehicle. First, the Next Generation Simulation dataset is used to train a lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on a sliding window support vector machine, and the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane is identified by lateral position offset. Second, according to the lanechanging intention and collision threat of the preceding vehicle, the target vehicle selection algorithm is studied under three different conditions: safe lane-changing, dangerous lane-changing, and lane-changing cancellation. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is verified in a co–simulation platform. The simulation results show that the target vehicle selection algorithm can ensure the smooth transfer of the target vehicle and effectively reduce the longitudinal acceleration fluctuation of the subject vehicle when the preceding vehicle changes lanes safely or cancels their lane change maneuver. In the case of a dangerous lane change, the target vehicle selection algorithm proposed in this paper can respond more rapidly to a dangerous lane change than the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system; thus, it can effectively avoid collisions and improve the safety of the subject vehicle. Keywords: Lane-changing intention, Target vehicle selection, Support vector machine, Adaptive cruise control
摘要 为了提高传统自适应巡航控制（ACC）系统在前车换道时的乘坐舒适性和安全性，提出一种基于前车换道意图预测的目标车辆选择算法。 首先，利用下一代仿真数据集训练基于滑动窗口支持向量机的换道意图预测算法，通过横向位置偏移来识别当前车道前车的换道意图。 其次，根据前车换道意图和碰撞威胁，研究了安全换道、危险换道和换道取消三种不同情况下的目标车辆选择算法。 最后，在联合仿真平台上验证了所提算法的有效性。 仿真结果表明，目标车辆选择算法能够保证目标车辆平稳换道，并有效降低前车安全变道或取消变道操作时目标车辆的纵向加速度波动。 在危险变道的情况下，本文提出的目标车辆选择算法比传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法能够更快地响应危险变道； 从而能够有效避免碰撞，提高主体车辆的安全性。
关键词：变道意图，目标车辆选择，支持向量机，自适应巡航控制

1 Introduction

The problems of traffic congestion have become more and more serious. As a result, adaptive cruise control (ACC), as a key technology of advanced driver assistance systems (ADASs), has been widely studied and gradually introduced into the lives of ordinary people. According to statistical reports, lane changes are the main cause of car crashes [1–4]. When the preceding vehicle changes lanes, traditional ACC systems simply declare the target vehicle (i.e., the vehicle that the subject vehicle follows) as the closest one currently in the subject vehicle’s lane; thus, these systems cannot comprehensively consider lanechanging vehicles. Under these condition, large fluctuations in longitudinal acceleration can occur; these greatly reduce ride comfort and may even present collision risks [5, 6]. To prevent this, one key technology is that of reliable lane-changing intention prediction, which can recognize that the preceding vehicle intends to change lanes before it crosses the lane line. This allows the subject vehicle to respond in advance of the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing action, thereby reducing acceleration fluctuations and minimizing collision risks. The most relevant methods thus far reported for predicting the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing intention can be roughly classified into four categories: fuzzy logic-based, support vector machine (SVM)-based, hidden Markov model (HMM)-based, and deep learning-based.
交通拥堵问题变得越来越严重。 由此，自适应巡航控制（ACC）作为高级驾驶辅助系统（ADAS）的关键技术，得到了广泛的研究并逐渐走进普通百姓的生活。 据统计报告显示，变道是造成车祸的主要原因[1-4]。 当前车变道时，传统的ACC系统只是将目标车辆（即目标车辆跟随的车辆）声明为当前在目标车辆车道上最近的车辆； 因此，这些系统无法全面考虑变道车辆。 在这种情况下，纵向加速度会发生较大的波动； 这些极大地降低了乘坐舒适度，甚至可能存在碰撞风险 [5, 6]。 为了防止这种情况的发生，一项关键技术是可靠的变道意图预测，它可以在越过车道线之前识别出前车意图变道。 这使得目标车辆能够在前车变道动作之前做出响应，从而减少加速度波动并最大限度地降低碰撞风险。 迄今为止报道的用于预测前车换道意图的最相关方法可大致分为四类：基于模糊逻辑、基于支持向量机（SVM）、基于隐马尔可夫模型（HMM）和基于深度学习。
The fuzzy logic-based method uses relative motion information between the subject and preceding vehicles as the input variable; with this, the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle can be obtained, to effectively realize human control strategies and experience. Moon et al. [7, 8] introduced a lane-changing intention predictor based on fuzzy logic; this used the relative lateral distance and relative lateral speed between the preceding and subject vehicles as the input, and it used fuzzy rules to determine the lane-changing probability of the preceding vehicle. This method assumed that the vehicles with smaller lateral relative distances and larger lateral relative speeds were more likely to change lane. The fuzzy rules presented in the literature are primarily based on the fitting curve of relative speed and relative distance under the preceding vehicle’s cut-in condition. However, the fuzzy logic controller largely depends on human experience, and it cannot objectively identify lane-changing intentions.
基于模糊逻辑的方法使用主体与前方车辆之间的相对运动信息作为输入变量； 由此，可以获得前车的换道意图，有效实现人的控制策略和体验。 月亮等人。 [7, 8]介绍了一种基于模糊逻辑的换道意图预测器； 该方法以前车与主车之间的相对横向距离和相对横向速度作为输入，利用模糊规则来确定前车换道概率。 该方法假设横向相对距离较小、横向相对速度较大的车辆更容易变道。 文献中提出的模糊规则主要基于前车切入情况下相对速度和相对距离的拟合曲线。 然而，模糊逻辑控制器在很大程度上依赖于人类经验，并且不能客观地识别换道意图。
The SVM-based method selects the appropriate feature vector using relative motion information, and it obtains the optimal SVM parameters through training, to predict the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle. Ma et al. [9, 10] used data collected from actual traffic environments as training samples, to identify cut-in maneuvers for adjacent-lane vehicles based on fuzzy support vector machines (FSVMs). To improve the training accuracy of the cut-in identifier, a fuzzy membership coefficient was introduced for each sample to solve the FSVM, and a grid optimization was conducted on the FSVM parameters. Woo et al. [11] defined the feature vector as comprising the distance from the centerline, the lateral velocity, and the potential feature. The potential feature characterizes the likelihood of lane-changing by analyzing the location relationship between the preceding vehicle and its surrounding vehicles. By adding the potential feature, the proposed SVM algorithm can eliminate the false predictions produced by zigzag driving.
基于SVM的方法利用相对运动信息选择合适的特征向量，并通过训练获得最优的SVM参数，从而预测前车的换道意图。 马等人。 [9, 10]使用从实际交通环境中收集的数据作为训练样本，基于模糊支持向量机（FSVM）来识别相邻车道车辆的切入操作。 为了提高切入标识符的训练精度，对每个样本引入模糊隶属系数来求解FSVM，并对FSVM参数进行网格优化。 吴等人。 [11]将特征向量定义为包含距中心线的距离、横向速度和潜在特征。 潜在特征通过分析前车与周围车辆的位置关系来表征换道的可能性。 通过添加潜在特征，所提出的SVM算法可以消除Z字形行驶产生的错误预测。
The HMM-based method mostly uses the observed state information of the preceding vehicle to identify independent and invisible lane-changing intentions. Ma established a mixed Gaussian-HMM to describe the lane changing behavior of adjacent vehicles. The driver’s decision states were segmented and described by the model parameters [12]. Furthermore, the lateral distance between the preceding vehicle and the center of the host vehicle was used to characterize the changes in decision states. Using results from Ref. [12], Zhang [13] classified lane-changing maneuvers into the safe and dangerous lane-changing processes, according to collision risk.Based upon the characteristics of lane keeping and lane changing, as well as the characteristics of safe and dangerous lane changes, the HMM-based lane-changing identification method was designed to use a sliding time window, and the driving state of each time window was judged in turn. Mitrovic proposed a simple and reliable method for identifying driving events using a HMM [14]. By collecting real-vehicle experimental data and manually selecting observation sequences for training and verification, each observation sequence was classified into specific types of events, and the HMM model parameters of each driving event were trained separately. The observation sequence from the training set was evaluated using multiple models. By comparing the probability of the observation sequence calculated by each HMM model, the event corresponding to the highest HMM model was selected as the estimated result.
基于HMM的方法主要利用观察到的前车状态信息来识别独立且不可见的换道意图。 马建立了混合高斯隐马尔可夫模型来描述相邻车辆的换道行为。 驾驶员的决策状态由模型参数进行分段和描述[12]。 此外，前车与本车中心之间的横向距离被用来表征决策状态的变化。 使用参考文献的结果。 [12]、张[13]根据碰撞风险，将变道操作分为安全变道和危险变道过程。基于车道保持和变道的特点，以及安全和危险变道的特点 ，设计了基于HMM的换道识别方法，采用滑动时间窗口，依次判断每个时间窗口的行驶状态。 Mitrovic 提出了一种使用 HMM 识别驾驶事件的简单可靠的方法 [14]。 通过收集实车实验数据并手动选择观察序列进行训练和验证，将每个观察序列分为特定类型的事件，并分别训练每个驾驶事件的HMM模型参数。 使用多个模型评估训练集中的观察序列。 通过比较各个HMM模型计算出的观测序列的概率，选择最高的HMM模型对应的事件作为估计结果。
The deep learning-based method predicts the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing intention or driving trajectory using a neural network. This method requires a huge dataset for parameter training to improve prediction results. Zhang et al. [15] used the speech-recognition framework as an example, and they mapped the behavior of the preceding vehicle (i.e., lane-changing or lanekeeping) to different speech words. Because the motion information of the preceding and surrounding vehicles was both continuous and time-varying, words of different sizes corresponded to different driving styles during lane changes. The speech recognition model could be effectively applied to recognize the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing behavior. Yoon et al. [16] calculated the lane-change likelihood of multiple target lanes and trajectories of surrounding vehicles using a radial basis function network (RBFN). The RBFN prediction algorithm used the classification distribution and future trajectory in parallel to estimate the probability of each lane becoming the driver’s target lane, and it converted the RBFN into a probability model which incorporated uncertainty. Lee et al. [17] proposed a lane-changing intention recognizer based on a convolutional neural network (CNN). This method transformed real-world driving data into a simplified bird’s-eye view, which facilitated a CNNbased inference approach with low computation cost and robustness against noisy inputs.
基于深度学习的方法利用神经网络预测前车的变道意图或行驶轨迹。 该方法需要庞大的数据集进行参数训练，以提高预测结果。 张等人。 [15]以语音识别框架为例，他们将前车的行为（即变道或保持车道）映射到不同的语音单词。 由于前车和后车的运动信息既是连续的又是时变的，不同大小的文字对应着变道时不同的驾驶风格。 语音识别模型可以有效地应用于识别前车的变道行为。 尹等人。 [16]使用径向基函数网络（RBFN）计算了多个目标车道和周围车辆轨迹的车道变换可能性。 RBFN预测算法并行使用分类分布和未来轨迹来估计每个车道成为驾驶员目标车道的概率，并将RBFN转换为包含不确定性的概率模型。 李等人。 [17]提出了一种基于卷积神经网络（CNN）的换道意图识别器。 该方法将现实世界的驾驶数据转换为简化的鸟瞰图，从而促进了基于 CNN 的推理方法，具有较低的计算成本和对噪声输入的鲁棒性。
Most of the current literature has sought to predict the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane (as shown in Figure 1); however, the prediction results for the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane (as shown in Figure 2) also determine the longitudinal acceleration of the subject vehicle. For example, when the preceding vehicle in the current lane changes lanes and a low-speed commercial vehicle or stationary object appears ahead in the current lane, the subject vehicle will also experience acceleration fluctuations or even collision risks. Therefore, this paper studies the lane-changing intention prediction algorithm for both the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane and the preceding vehicle in the current lane. Because most of the previous studies used SVMs to identify the lanechanging intention of the preceding vehicle, they only selected a certain feature vector and kernel function of the SVM, and they failed to explain the reasons for their selections. This study compares the prediction accuracies of different types of SVM, selects the RBF as the kernel function, and analyzes the influence of different sliding window sizes on the prediction accuracy. Moreover, most previous research has only studied the successful lane changes of the preceding vehicle, without considering the failure or cancellation thereof. This work studies target vehicle selection when the preceding vehicle fails to change lanes.
目前大多数文献都试图预测相邻车道前车的换道意图（如图1所示）； 然而，当前车道前车换道意图的预测结果（如图2所示）也决定了主车的纵向加速度。 例如，当前车道前车变道、当前车道前方出现低速商用车或静止物体时，主车也会出现加速度波动甚至碰撞风险。 因此，本文研究了相邻车道前车和当前车道前车的换道意图预测算法。 由于之前的研究大多使用SVM来识别前车的换道意图，他们只选择了SVM的某个特征向量和核函数，并且未能解释其选择的原因。 本研究比较了不同类型SVM的预测精度，选择RBF作为核函数，分析了不同滑动窗口大小对预测精度的影响。 而且，以往的研究大多只研究了前车成功变道的情况，而没有考虑前车变道失败或取消的情况。 本工作研究前车未能变道时的目标车辆选择。

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 illustrates the system architecture, Section 3 introduces the lane-changing intention prediction algorithm, Section 4 introduces the target vehicle selection algorithm, Section 5 studies the longitudinal motion control algorithm, Section 6 evaluates the proposed algorithm in a simulation, and Section 7 concludes the paper.
本文的其余部分结构如下：第 2 节说明系统架构，第 3 节介绍换道意图预测算法，第 4 节介绍目标车辆选择算法，第 5 节研究纵向运动控制算法，第 6 节评估 在模拟中提出的算法，第 7 节总结了本文。

2 System Architecture

The overall framework proposed in this paper is shown in Figure 3. It is primarily divided into three components: lane-changing intention prediction, target vehicle selection, and longitudinal motion control. First, the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle was primarily predicted by the sliding window SVM algorithm. We used the Next Generation Simulation (NGSIM) dataset to train the parameters of the SVM and determine the size of the sliding window. The lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane was predicted via the lateral relative distance offset. The next step was to select the target vehicle. The target vehicle selection determines the target vehicle under three different conditions: safe lane-changing, dangerous lane-changing, and lane-changing cancellation. The longitudinal motion control generated the actuator control value using the state information of the target vehicle. The actuator control quantity was composed of two components: the feedforward and feedback control quantities.
本文提出的总体框架如图3所示。它主要分为三个部分：换道意图预测、目标车辆选择和纵向运动控制。 首先，主要通过滑动窗口SVM算法预测前车换道意图。 我们使用下一代模拟（NGSIM）数据集来训练SVM的参数并确定滑动窗口的大小。 通过横向相对距离偏移来预测当前车道中前车的换道意图。 下一步是选择目标车辆。 目标车辆选择在安全换道、危险换道、取消换道三种不同情况下确定目标车辆。 纵向运动控制使用目标车辆的状态信息生成致动器控制值。 执行器控制量由两部分组成：前馈控制量和反馈控制量。

3 Lane‑changing Intention Prediction Algorithm based on Sliding Window SVM

When the preceding vehicle changes lanes, the traditional ACC system cannot comprehensively consider the preceding vehicle in the current lane as well as the lanechanging vehicle. Large fluctuations arise in longitudinal acceleration under this condition, which greatly reduces the ride comfort and may even cause collision risks. To avoid the violent fluctuation in longitudinal acceleration caused by the jump of the target vehicle, the sliding window SVM algorithm was adopted to identify the lanechanging intention of the preceding vehicle.
当前车变道时，传统的ACC系统无法综合考虑当前车道的前车以及变道车辆。 该工况下纵向加速度波动较大，极大降低了乘坐舒适性，甚至可能产生碰撞风险。 为了避免目标车辆跳跃引起的纵向加速度剧烈波动，采用滑动窗口SVM算法识别前车换道意图。

3.1 NGSIM Dataset Preprocessing

This study used the public dataset recorded by the NGSIM program (initiated by the Federal Highway Administration in 2002) to train the sliding window SVM [18]. This program used high-definition cameras installed above the road to record vehicle driving data, and it used video processing software to obtain the vehicle trajectory data at intervals of 0.1 s. The lane-changing vehicle data on the US101 highway in the NGSIM dataset were used to train the lane-changing intention prediction SVM in this work.
本研究使用 NGSIM 程序（由联邦公路管理局于 2002 年发起）记录的公共数据集来训练滑动窗口 SVM [18]。 该方案利用安装在道路上方的高清摄像头记录车辆行驶数据，并利用视频处理软件以0.1s的间隔获取车辆轨迹数据。 本工作使用NGSIM数据集中US101高速公路上的换道车辆数据来训练换道意图预测SVM。
The study area schematic and camera coverage of the NGSIM US101 highway data are shown in Figure 4. After simple filtering, 6100 individual vehicle driving data points were obtained. We studied the free lane-changing behavior of passenger cars; thus, reasonable lane-changing vehicle data must meet the following constraints:
NGSIM US101高速公路数据的研究区域示意图和摄像头覆盖范围如图4所示。经过简单的过滤，得到了6100个个体车辆行驶数据点。 我们研究了客车的自由变道行为； 因此，合理的换道车辆数据必须满足以下约束：
(1) Because this work studies the free lane changing of cars, it is necessary to restrict the types of vehicles to 2-cars.
(2) Lanes 7 and 8 of US101 highway are both ramps, Lane 6 is the auxiliary lane of the ramp entrance, Lane 1 is the leftmost lane, and Lane 5 is the rightmost lane, adjacent to Lane 6. To avoid the influence of the forced lane-changing behavior data produced by vehicles entering and exiting the ramp, the lane-changing vehicle data used in this paper exclude the vehicle trajectories containing Lanes 6, 7, and 8 in their driving lane ID, and we ensure that the lane ID in the vehicle trajectory data undergoes a change.
(3) To prevent vehicle lane ID changes caused by vehicles driving near the lane line at all times, we compared the deviations of lateral position between the start and end of the lane change, ensuring that this deviation exceeded 2.75 m.
(1) 由于本工作研究的是汽车的自由变道，因此有必要将车辆类型限制为2辆汽车。
(2) US101高速公路7、8车道均为匝道，6车道为匝道入口辅助车道，1车道为最左侧车道，5车道为最右侧车道，与6车道相邻。 进出匝道的车辆产生的强制换道行为数据，本文使用的换道车辆数据排除了其行驶车道ID中包含车道6、7、8的车辆轨迹，并保证车道 车辆轨迹数据中的ID发生变化。
(3) 为了防止车辆始终靠近车道线行驶而引起车辆车道ID变化，我们比较了换道起点和终点的横向位置偏差，确保该偏差超过2.75 m。

Through artificial selection, 184 reasonable lanechanging vehicle trajectories were obtained. Because the subject vehicle can only obtain the relative position and speed information of the preceding vehicle through its sensors, it was necessary to calculate the relative lateral distance and lateral speed of the preceding vehicle relative to the road centerline of the target lane. By subtracting the local coordinates of the target lane centerline from those of the lane-changing vehicle, the relative lateral distance of the lane-changing vehicle relative to the centerline of the target lane was obtained. To reduce the influence of NGSIM dataset measurement errors, Kalman filter was used to calculate the relative lateral velocity vy and relative lateral acceleration ay of the preceding vehicle relative to the road centerline of the target lane. The estimated relative lateral velocity vy and acceleration a y are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
通过人工选择，得到184条合理的换道车辆轨迹。 由于本车只能通过自身的传感器获取前车的相对位置和速度信息，因此需要计算前车相对于目标车道道路中心线的相对横向距离和横向速度。 通过换道车辆局部坐标减去目标车道中心线坐标，即可得到换道车辆相对于目标车道中心线的相对横向距离。 为了减少NGSIM数据集测量误差的影响，**采用卡尔曼滤波器计算前车相对于目标车道道路中心线的相对横向速度 $v_y$ 和相对横向加速度 $a_y$。 估计的相对横向速度 $v_y$ 和加速度 $a_y$ 分别如 图 5 和 图 6 所示。


The relative lateral velocity calculated by Kalman filter was essentially identical to that obtained by the local coordinate Y’s difference in the original NGSIM dataset; however, the spike was effectively suppressed. By comparing the relative lateral accelerations computed via Kalman filter of the acceleration data obtained by velocity difference, we found that such filtering could well restrain the fluctuation generated by the difference.
卡尔曼滤波器计算得到的相对横向速度与原始NGSIM数据集中局部坐标Y差值得到的相对横向速度基本一致； 然而，峰值被有效抑制。 通过比较由速度差获得的加速度数据通过卡尔曼滤波器计算出的相对横向加速度，我们发现这种滤波可以很好地抑制由速度差产生的波动。

3.2 SVM Algorithm Design

3.2.1 SVM Algorithm

SVM is a very popular algorithm in machine learning. It is mainly used to identify a suitable hyperplane in a multi-dimensional space as a classification plane, to maximize the minimum spacing of positive and negative samples in the sample space. The samples that satisfy the minimum spacing are called support vectors. For linearly inseparable cases, the SVM can use the kernel function to transform the nonlinear classification scenario into a linearly separable situation in the high–dimensional sample space [19–21]. Commonly used kernel functions include the polynomial and Gaussian kernel functions.
SVM是机器学习中非常流行的算法。 主要用于在多维空间中识别一个合适的超平面作为分类平面，以最大化样本空间中正负样本的最小间距。 满足最小间距的样本称为支持向量。 对于线性不可分的情况，SVM可以使用核函数将非线性分类场景转化为高维样本空间中线性可分的情况[19-21]。 常用的核函数包括多项式核函数和高斯核函数。
We assume that the classification function is
我们假设分类函数是

In the model that predicts the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle, hw,b(x) = 1 indicates that the preceding vehicle intends to change lanes, and hw,b(x) = 0 indicates that the preceding vehicle does not intend to change lanes and will continue to drive in the original one. The optimization objective of the SVM is to maximize the geometric margins between the positive and negative samples. The definition of geometric margin γ (i) is
在预测前车换道意图的模型中，$h_{\bar{w},b}(\bar{x})=1$ 表示前车有换道意图，$h_{\bar{w},b}(\bar{x})=0$ 表示前车无意换道并继续沿原车道行驶。 SVM的优化目标是最大化正负样本之间的几何 margins。 几何 margin $\gamma (i)$ 的定义为

where m represents the number of samples in the training set, and γ denotes the smallest margin. The original optimization problem of the SVM is as follows:
其中 m 表示训练集中的样本数，γ 表示最小margin。 SVM的原始优化问题如下：

The non-convex constraint�w� = 1 in the original optimization problem means that the original problem is very difficult to solve. Thus, it must be transformed into a convex optimization problem:
原优化问题中的非凸约束 $||\bar{w}||=1$ 意味着原问题很难求解。 因此，必须将其转化为凸优化问题：

Through Lagrange duality, the above convex optimization problem can be transformed into a quadratic programming problem, expressed as
通过拉格朗日对偶性，上述凸优化问题可以转化为二次规划问题，表示为

3.2.2 SVM Feature Vector Selection

The feature vectors selected in Ref. [10] include the longitudinal relative distance between the subject and preceding vehicles, lateral relative distance, longitudinal relative speed, lateral relative speed, longitudinal relative acceleration, lateral relative acceleration, and subject vehicle speed; these are shown in Figure 7. However, the training samples are limited and cannot cover all feature vectors that may arise in the SVM; for example, the present speed of the subject vehicle never appears in the training sample; furthermore, the current longitudinal relative distance, longitudinal relative speed, and longitudinal relative acceleration exceed the range of the feature vector in the training sample. In the above cases, the accuracy of the lane-changing intention prediction obtained via the SVM is very low. Ref. [11] selected the lateral relative distance, lateral relative speed, and potential feature of the preceding vehicle (relative to the centerline of the subject vehicle’s driving lane) as the feature vector. The potential feature, which analyzes the position relationship between the preceding vehicle and its surrounding traffic vehicles, represents the lane-changing risk degree of the preceding vehicle. This feature is added to reduce false predictions when the preceding vehicle is performing zigzag driving in its original lane. However, millimeter– wave radar and cameras, as the main sensor systems of ADAS, do not obtain comprehensive and accurate motion state information for traffic vehicles surrounding the preceding vehicle. In addition, this paper assumes that the preceding vehicle’s zigzag driving in the original lane does not necessarily indicate it as failing to change lanes. It may indicate the inexperienced driving of novice drivers, or that the target vehicle is in the target lane adjustment stage after a lane change. The potential feature cannot be used to solve all zigzag driving misjudgments.
参考文献中选择的特征向量。 [10]包括主车与前车之间的纵向相对距离、横向相对距离、纵向相对速度、横向相对速度、纵向相对加速度、横向相对加速度、主车速度； 如图7所示。然而，训练样本是有限的，无法覆盖SVM中可能出现的所有特征向量； 例如，目标车辆的当前速度从未出现在训练样本中；并且，当前的纵向相对距离、纵向相对速度、纵向相对加速度超出了训练样本中特征向量的范围。 在上述情况下，通过SVM获得的换道意图预测的准确度很低。 参考 [11]选择前车的横向相对距离、横向相对速度和潜在特征（相对于主车行驶车道中心线）作为特征向量。 潜在特征分析前车与周围交通车辆的位置关系，表征前车换道风险程度。 增加该功能是为了减少前车在原车道进行Z字形行驶时的误判。 然而，毫米波雷达和摄像头作为ADAS的主要传感器系统，并不能获取前车周围交通车辆全面、准确的运动状态信息。 另外，本文假设前车在原车道上曲折行驶并不一定表明其未变道。 这可能表明新手驾驶员驾驶经验不足，或者目标车辆在变道后处于目标车道调整阶段。 潜在的特征并不能解决所有的Z字形行驶误判。

The feature vectors selected in this work include the lateral relative distance d y and lateral relative speed vy of the preceding vehicle relative to the centerline of the subject vehicle’s driving lane as shown in Figure 8. When using only the relative motion information at the present moment as the feature vector, a short-term misjudgment often occurs owing to the jump of the motion state. However, the lane-changing intention prediction of the preceding vehicle at the current moment is often related to the relative motion information over several previous cycles. Therefore, this paper takes the relative motion information of the preceding vehicle relative to the centerline of the subject vehicle’s driving lane in the previous k cycles as the feature vector. The feature vector xt at time t can be expressed as
本文选取的特征向量包括前车相对于本车行驶车道中心线的横向相对距离 $d_y$ 和横向相对速度 $v_y$，如 图8 所示。当仅使用当前时刻的相对运动信息为 对于特征向量，由于运动状态的跳跃，经常会出现短期误判。 然而，当前时刻前车换道意图预测往往与之前几个周期的相对运动信息相关。 因此，本文将前 k 个周期内前车相对于本车行驶车道中心线的相对运动信息作为特征向量。 t 时刻的特征向量 $x_t$ 可以表示为

where D y is the feature of the lateral relative distance, and V y is the feature of the lateral relative speed with respect to the centerline of the subject vehicle’s driving lane.
其中 ${\bar{D}}_y$ 是横向相对距离的特征，${\bar{V}}_y$ 是相对于主车辆行驶车道中心线的横向相对速度的特征。
Selecting the relative motion information of the preceding vehicle relative to the centerline of the subject vehicle’s driving lane as the feature vector (instead of the relative motion information of the preceding vehicle relative to the subject vehicle) can, on the one hand, mitigate the influence of the subject vehicle’s lateral movement on the lane-changing intention prediction. On the other hand, it is very convenient to convert the relative lateral distance into d coordinates under Frenet coordinates when driving in curves [22, 23].
选择前车相对于本车行驶车道中心线的相对运动信息作为特征向量（而不是前车相对于本车的相对运动信息），一方面可以减轻影响目标车辆的横向运动对换道意图预测的影响。 另一方面，在弯道行驶时，将相对横向距离转换为 Frenet 坐标下的 d 坐标是非常方便的[22, 23]。

3.2.3 SVM Parameter Training

To resolve the influences of different feature units, the z-score normalization was used to standardize the features. The mean value of each feature after processing was zero, and the standard deviation was 1. Prior to SVM parameter training, the NGSIM dataset was divided into training and test set samples in the ratio 7:3. The numbers of training and test set samples were 10080 and 4273, respectively. SVMs with different parameters were trained using training set samples, and the SVM prediction accuracy was tested by test set samples. Meanwhile, we used the cross-validation method to divide the training set data into N copies (N = 5 in this paper). In each training process, N − 1 of these were selected for training, and the remaining copy was used as the validation set. Through n-training, the group of parameters with the highest accuracy from the validation set was selected as the final training result. The flow chart of the SVM parameter training is shown in Figure 9.
为了解决不同特征单元的影响，使用 z 分数归一化来标准化特征。 处理后每个特征的平均值为零，标准差为1。在SVM参数训练之前，NGSIM数据集按7:3的比例分为训练集和测试集样本。 训练集样本数为10080，测试集样本数为4273。 利用训练集样本训练不同参数的SVM，并利用测试集样本测试SVM的预测精度。 同时，我们使用交叉验证的方法将训练集数据分为N份（本文中N=5）。 在每个训练过程中，选择其中的 N − 1 个进行训练，剩余的副本用作验证集。 通过n次训练，从验证集中选择准确率最高的一组参数作为最终的训练结果。 SVM参数训练流程图如图9所示。

Linear, quadratic, cubic, and radial basis functions were selected as the kernel function to train the SVM. Meanwhile, to determine the size of the sliding window, we trained the SVM with four different kernel functions in a window size range of 0–5 s with an interval of 0.2 s. The training results are shown in Figure 10.
选择线性、二次、三次和径向基函数作为核函数来训练支持向量机。 同时，为了确定滑动窗口的大小，我们使用四个不同的核函数在窗口大小范围为0-5秒、间隔为0.2秒的情况下训练SVM。 训练结果如图10所示。
In Figure 10(d), we can see that when the sliding window size was 0.4 s, the test set accuracy of the linear kernel function SVM reached the maximum value of 0.676. Because the quadratic, cubic, and RBF kernel functions can map sample features to higher spaces and achieve nonlinear classification, the validation and test set accuracies of the above three kernel function SVMs were improved to different degrees compared with the linear kernel function SVM. The RBF kernel function SVM had the most prominent improvement. The test set accuracy of the RBF kernel function SVM reached 0.935 when the sliding window was 2.2 s. Therefore, we selected the RBF kernel function SVM to predict the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle.
从 图10(d) 中可以看出，当滑动窗口大小为0.4 s时，线性核函数SVM的测试集精度达到最大值0.676。 由于二次核函数、三次核函数和RBF核函数可以将样本特征映射到更高的空间并实现非线性分类，因此上述三种核函数SVM的验证集和测试集精度较线性核函数SVM都有不同程度的提高。 RBF核函数SVM的改进最为显着。 当滑动窗口为2.2 s时，RBF核函数SVM的测试集精度达到0.935。 因此，我们选择RBF核函数SVM来预测前车换道意图。
Comparing the accuracies of the test and verification sets, we found that the test set accuracies of the above three kernel function SVMs were lower than the validation set accuracy to some extent. When the size of the sliding window was increased, the number of features increased, and overfitting occurred during SVM training. When the size of the sliding window increased, the validation set accuracy could be continuously improved. However, when the sliding window size exceeded a certain range, the test–set prediction accuracy decreased when the size of the time window increased (this was particularly clear for the RBF kernel function SVM); that is, in terms of the size of the sliding window, longer does not necessarily entail better.
对比测试集和验证集的准确率，我们发现上述三种核函数SVM的测试集准确率在一定程度上低于验证集准确率。 当滑动窗口尺寸增大时，特征数量增多，SVM训练时会出现过拟合。 当滑动窗口的大小增加时，验证集的准确性可以不断提高。 然而，当滑动窗口大小超过一定范围时，测试集预测精度随着时间窗口大小的增加而下降（这对于RBF核函数SVM尤其明显）； 也就是说，就滑动窗口的大小而言，更长并不一定意味着更好。
As shown in Figure 10(a), when the sliding window size was 2.2 s, the test set accuracy of the RBF kernel function SVM was maximal. Therefore, we selected the RBF kernel function SVM with a sliding window size of 2.2 s to predict the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle. After determining the SVM kernel function and sliding window size, we combined the test and training set samples to form a new training set, and trained using this set to obtain the final lane-changing intention prediction SVM. The parameters of the final SVM for the preceding vehicle lane-changing intention prediction are shown in Table 1. Here, KernelScale is the parameter γ of the RBF, where the RBF has the following form: Kx(i), x(j) = exp −γ x(i) − x(j) . BoxConstraint is a positive value that controls the penalty imposed on observations with large residuals [24].
如 图10（a） 所示，当滑动窗口大小为2.2 s时，RBF核函数SVM的测试集精度最大。 因此，我们选择滑动窗口大小为2.2 s的RBF核函数SVM来预测前车换道意图。 在确定SVM核函数和滑动窗口大小后，我们将测试集和训练集样本组合起来形成新的训练集，并使用该集进行训练，得到最终的换道意图预测SVM。 最终SVM对前车换道意图预测的参数如表1所示。这里，KernelScale是RBF的参数 $\gamma$，其中RBF的形式如下：$K({\bar{x}}^{(i)},{\bar{x}}^{(j)})=exp(-\gamma ||{\bar{x}}^{(i)}-{\bar{x}}^{(j)}||)$ 。 BoxConstraint 是一个正值，用于控制对具有较大残差的观测值施加的惩罚 [24]。

3.3 Prediction Results of Lane‑changing Intention for Preceding Vehicle in the Adjacent Lane

The prediction results of the lane-changing intention for the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane are shown in Figure 11: (a) SVM features, (b) lane-changing intention prediction obtained by SVM_2.2 s, and © lane-changing intention prediction obtained by SVM_0 s. It can be seen from Figure 11(a) that the preceding vehicle performed zigzag driving in the original lane within 4.3–7 s of the start of the simulation. Furthermore, the lane change began at 10.5 s and ended at 15 s. The overall lane changing time was 4.5 s. It can be seen from Figure 11(b) that the lane-changing intention prediction SVM based on the sliding window designed in this study (denoted as SVM_2.2 s) predicted that the preceding vehicle had a lane-changing intention at 11.9 s. From Figure 11(a), we see that the preceding vehicle passed through the lane line of the lane in which the subject vehicle was located at 13.2 s; thus, the lane-changing intention prediction SVM based on the sliding window identified the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle 1.3 s in advance. Figure 11© shows the prediction results of the SVM that used only the motion state information of the current moment as the feature vector (denoted SVM_0 s). Short-term misjudgments were observed at 4.9 s and 6 s. SVM_0 s only used the motion state information at the current moment as the feature vector; hence, it easily made misjudgments when the motion state jumped during zigzag driving. The lanechanging intention prediction SVM designed in this paper employed the motion state information of the entire sliding window (the window size was 2.2 s); thus, it could deal with the disturbance of motion state changes produced by zigzag driving.
相邻车道前车换道意图的预测结果如图11所示：（a）SVM特征，（b）SVM_2.2s得到的换道意图预测，（c）车道- SVM_0s 获得的改变意图预测。 从图11（a）可以看出，前车在模拟开始后4.3~7 s内在原车道上进行了Z字形行驶。 此外，变道在 10.5 秒开始，在 15 秒结束。 总变道时间为 4.5 秒。 从图11（b）可以看出，本研究设计的基于滑动窗口的换道意图预测SVM（记为SVM_2.2 s）在11.9 s时预测前车有换道意图。 从图11(a)中我们看到，前车在13.2 s时通过了本车所在车道的车道线； 因此，基于滑动窗口的换道意图预测SVM提前1.3 s识别出前车的换道意图。 图11（c）显示了仅使用当前时刻的运动状态信息作为特征向量（表示为SVM_0 s）的SVM的预测结果。 在4.9秒和6秒时观察到短期误判。 SVM_0 仅使用当前时刻的运动状态信息作为特征向量； 因此，在之字形行驶过程中，当运动状态发生跳跃时，很容易产生误判。 本文设计的换道意图预测SVM利用了整个滑动窗口的运动状态信息（窗口大小为2.2 s）； 因此，它可以处理锯齿形行驶产生的运动状态变化的干扰。


Compared with the traditional ACC target vehicle selection algorithm, the time advantage of the SVM-based lanechanging intention prediction output was related to many factors, including the initial relative lateral distance when the preceding vehicle began to change lanes, the overall lane-changing time, and more. Figure 12 shows the prediction results of the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing intention under three different overall lane-changing times, with the overall lane-changing times of 3.1 s, 5.0 s, and 6.9 s corresponding to Figure 12(a), (b), and ©, respectively; the lane-changing intention prediction SVM designed in this study identified the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle 0.9 s, 1.7 s, and 2.3 s, in advance of the traditional ACC target vehicle selection algorithm as shown in Table 2. When the overall lane-changing time increased, the advance time increased accordingly. Therefore, the advance time cannot be used as the only criterion to judge the quality of the lane-changing intention prediction SVM.
与传统ACC目标车辆选择算法相比，基于SVM的换道意图预测输出的时间优势与多种因素有关，包括前车开始换道时的初始相对横向距离、整体换道时间、 和更多。 图12为三种不同总换道时间下前车换道意图的预测结果，总换道时间分别为3.1 s、5.0 s和6.9 s，对应图12(a)、(b ) 和 ( c) 分别； 本研究设计的换道意图预测SVM比传统ACC目标车辆选择算法提前0.9 s、1.7 s和2.3 s识别出前车换道意图，如表2所示。 变道时间增加，提前时间相应增加。 因此，提前时间不能作为判断换道意图预测SVM好坏的唯一标准。

3.4 Prediction Results of Lane‑changing Intention for Preceding Vehicle in the Current Lane

When the preceding vehicle in the current lane changes lanes, if a low-speed vehicle or stationary object appears ahead in the current lane, the subject vehicle will experience acceleration fluctuations or collision risks. Therefore, it is important to identify the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane. However, because the lane-changing intention prediction SVM designed in this paper used the lateral relative distance and lateral relative speed of the preceding vehicle (relative to the centerline of the target lane) as the feature vector, it cannot be directly applied to predict the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane. To solve this problem, the lateral relative distance of the preceding vehicle in the current lane was offset left and right, respectively. The offset distance was one lane width, as shown in Figure 13.
当前车道前车变道时，如果当前车道前方出现低速车辆或静止物体，则主车会出现加速度波动或碰撞风险。 因此，识别当前车道前车的换道意图非常重要。 然而，由于本文设计的换道意图预测SVM使用前车（相对于目标车道中心线）的横向相对距离和横向相对速度作为特征向量，因此不能直接应用于预测换道意图。 当前车道前车的换道意图。 为了解决这个问题，当前车道前车的横向相对距离分别向左和向右偏移。 偏移距离为一车道宽度，如图 13 所示。

The lateral relative distance offset does not affect the magnitude of lateral relative velocity. By inputting the offset lateral relative distance and lateral relative speed as feature vectors into the lane-changing intention prediction SVM, the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane (with the left and right adjacent lanes as the target lane) could be identified. When the lane width was shifted to the left, the target lane of the preceding vehicle changed from the right adjacent lane to the current one, and the right lane-changing intention of the vehicle in the current lane was identified using the lanechanging intention prediction SVM. Likewise, when the lane width was shifted to the right, the target lane of the preceding vehicle changed from the left adjacent lane to the current lane, and the left lane-changing intention of the vehicle in the current lane was identified. The prediction results of the lane-changing intention for the preceding vehicle in the current lane are shown in Figure 14: (a) features of the left lane-changing intention prediction SVM, (b) left lane-changing intention prediction, © features of the right lane-changing intention prediction SVM, and (d) right lane-changing intention prediction.
横向相对距离偏移不影响横向相对速度的大小。 通过将偏移的横向相对距离和横向相对速度作为特征向量输入到换道意图预测SVM中，可以得到当前车道（以左右相邻车道为目标车道）前车的换道意图 被识别。 当车道宽度向左移动时，前车目标车道从右邻车道变为当前车道，利用换道意图预测SVM识别当前车道车辆的右侧换道意图 。 同样，当车道宽度向右移动时，前车的目标车道从左侧相邻车道变为当前车道，识别出当前车道车辆的左侧换道意图。 当前车道前车换道意图预测结果如图14所示：(a)左侧换道意图预测SVM特征，(b)左侧换道意图预测，( c) 右变道意图预测SVM的特征，以及(d)右变道意图预测。

Because the relative lateral distance after shifting to the left by one lane width varied as 3.7–7.5 m, the prediction results of the right lane-changing intention for the preceding vehicle were always zero, which means that the preceding vehicle did not have a right lane-changing intention. However, when the lateral relative distance offset to the right and the lateral relative velocity were taken as the feature vector, the left lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle could be identified by the SVM at 10.6 s. Compared with the traditional ACC target vehicle selection algorithm, the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle in the current lane could be identified 1 s in advance.
由于左移一个车道宽度后的相对横向距离变化为3.7~7.5 m，前车右侧变道意图的预测结果始终为零，这意味着前车没有右变道意图。 变道意图。 然而，当以横向相对距离向右偏移和横向相对速度作为特征向量时，SVM可以在10.6 s时识别出前车的左侧换道意图。 与传统ACC目标车辆选择算法相比，可以提前1 s识别当前车道前车的换道意图。

4 Target Vehicle Selection based on the Prediction of the Lane‑Changing Intention for the Preceding Vehicle

This study neglects the situation in which both the preceding vehicle in the current lane and that in the adjacent lane change lanes simultaneously; it only considers the situation in which one of them changes lane; here, we take the lane change of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane as an example to illustrate the target vehicle selection process.
本研究忽略了当前车道前车和相邻车道前车同时变道的情况； 只考虑其中一方变道的情况； 这里，我们以相邻车道前车变道为例来说明目标车辆选择过程。
To select the target vehicle, it is necessary to calculate the collision risk of each target. The collision risk is represented byTTC−1 in this study [25, 26].TTC−1 can be calculated as
为了选择目标车辆，需要计算每个目标的碰撞风险。 本研究中碰撞风险用 $TT{C}^{-1}$ 表示[25, 26]。$TT{C}^{-1}$ 可以计算为

where dx is the longitudinal relative distance, vx is the longitudinal relative speed between the preceding and subject vehicles, which equals the difference between the longitudinal speed of subject vehicle vsubject and that of the preceding vehicle vpreceding, as shown in Figure 15.
式中，$d_x$ 为纵向相对距离，$v_x$ 为前车与主车之间的纵向相对速度，等于主车 $v_{subject}$ 与前车 $v_{preceding}$ 的纵向速度之差，如图15所示。

When TTC−1 exceeds zero, it means that the preceding vehicle is approaching and there is a risk of collision. The collision threat increases with the increase ofTTC−1. When TTC−1 is less than zero, it indicates that the preceding vehicle is far from the subject vehicle and there is no collision risk.
当 $TT{C}^{-1}$ 超过零时，表示前车正在接近，存在碰撞风险。 碰撞威胁随着 $TT{C}^{-1}$ 的增加而增加。 当 $TT{C}^{-1}$ 小于0时，表明前车距离本车较远，不存在碰撞风险。
According to the lane-changing intention (denoted as Intention) and the collision threat of each target, the targets in the adjacent lane can be classified into three types; these are represented by DriveStatue [7], as shown in Figure 16.
根据每个目标的换道意图（记为Intention）和碰撞威胁，可以将相邻车道内的目标分为三类； 这些由 DriveStatue [7] 表示，如图 16 所示。

Area 1 indicates that the preceding vehicle has no lane-changing intention (Intention = 0). In this case, the DriveStaue is equal to zero. Area 2 indicates that the preceding vehicle has a lane-changing intention but there is no collision risk (Intention = 1, TTC−1 < Th TTC); in this case, the DriveStaue is equal to 1. Area 3 means that the preceding vehicle has lane-changing intention and there is a risk of collision (Intention = 1, TTC−1 ≥ ThTTC). In this case, the DriveStaue is equal to 2.
区域1 表示前车没有变道意图（意图=0）。 在这种情况下，DriveStaue 等于零。 区域2表示前车有变道意图，但不存在碰撞风险（意图=1，TTC−1 < Th TTC）； 此时DriveStaue等于1。区域3表示前车有变道意图，存在碰撞风险（意图=1，TTC−1≥ThTTC）。 在本例中，DriveStaue 等于 2。
Because there may be multiple vehicles with lane-changing intention in the adjacent lane ahead, it is necessary to select the “most threatening” of them as the target vehicle in the adjacent lane. Firstly, according to the DriveStatue of the targets in the adjacent lane, we can obtain the driving status with the highest priority RDS at the current time as the representative DriveStatue, expressed as
由于前方相邻车道可能存在多辆有变道意图的车辆，因此需要选择其中“最具威胁”的车辆作为相邻车道的目标车辆。 首先，根据相邻车道目标的DriveStatue，可以得到当前时刻RDS优先级最高的行驶状态作为代表DriveStatue，表示为

where n is the number of targets in the adjacent lane.
其中 n 是相邻车道中的目标数量。
Among the targets whose DriveStatue is the RDS in the adjacent lane, that with the smallest longitudinal relative distance from the subject vehicle is selected as the target vehicle in the adjacent lane. According to the different RDS values, the fusion methods for the target vehicle in the adjacent lane and the target closest to the subject vehicle in the current lane (i.e., the target vehicle obtained by the traditional ACC target vehicle selection algorithm, referred to as the target vehicle in the current lane) also differ. The values dx,inlane and vx,inlane represent the longitudinal relative distance and speed, respectively, between the target vehicle in the current lane and the subject vehicle; dx,adjacent lane and vx,adjacent lane represent the longitudinal relative distance and speed, respectively, between the target vehicle in the adjacent lane and the subject vehicle.
在DriveStatue为相邻车道RDS的目标中，选择与主车辆纵向相对距离最小的目标车辆作为相邻车道的目标车辆。 根据不同的RDS值，对相邻车道的目标车辆和当前车道中距离本车最近的目标（即传统ACC目标车辆选择算法得到的目标车辆，简称为 当前车道中的目标车辆）也不同。 $d_{x,inlane}$ 和 $v_{x,inlane}$ 分别表示当前车道目标车辆与主车辆之间的纵向相对距离和速度； $d_{x,adjacentlane}$ 和 $v_{x,adjacentlane}$，分别表示相邻车道目标车辆与主车辆之间的纵向相对距离和速度。
Case 1: RDS = 0, there is no vehicle in the adjacent lanes with lane-changing intention; thus, the target vehicle in the current lane can be directly selected as the target vehicle; that is,
情况1：RDS = 0，相邻车道上没有车辆有换道意图； 这样就可以直接选择当前车道上的目标车辆作为目标车辆。 那是，

Case 2: RDS = 1, the target vehicle in the adjacent lane has a lane-changing intention and there is no risk of collision, which means the target vehicle in the adjacent lane changes lanes safely. In this case, the target vehicle selection must fuse the target vehicle in the current lane with that in the adjacent lane, using
情况2：RDS=1，相邻车道目标车辆有换道意图，不存在碰撞风险，意味着相邻车道目标车辆安全换道。 在这种情况下，目标车辆选择必须将当前车道中的目标车辆与相邻车道中的目标车辆融合，使用

where d y,Init is the lateral relative distance of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane (relative to the center line of the lane in which the subject vehicle is located) when that vehicle is first detected as having a lane-changing intention, and dy,adjacentlane is the lateral relative distance of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane relative to the center line of the subject vehicle’s lane.
式中，$d_{y,Init}$ 为首次检测到目标车辆有变道意图时，相邻车道目标车辆（相对于本车所在车道中心线）的横向相对距离，$d_{y,adjacentlane}$ 是相邻车道中目标车辆相对于主车辆车道中心线的横向相对距离。
During the lane-changing process of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane, dy,adjacentlane changes from dy,Init to 0.875 m (when the lateral relative distance of the target in the adjacent lane is less than 0.875 m, this target can be considered as the target in the current lane), and α smoothly transfers from zero to 1.
相邻车道目标车辆换道过程中，$d_{y,adjacentlane}$ 由 $d_{y,Init}$ 变化为 0.875 m（当相邻车道目标车辆横向相对距离小于 0.875 m 时，可认为该目标作为当前车道中的目标），并且 $\alpha$ 从0平滑地转移到1。
Case 3: RDS = 2, the target vehicle in the adjacent lane has a lane-changing intention and there is a risk of collision, which means the target vehicle in the adjacent lane changes lanes dangerously. In this case, the primary goal is to maintain the safety of the subject vehicle. Thus, the target vehicle in the adjacent lane is directly selected as the target vehicle; that is,
情况3： RDS=2，相邻车道目标车辆有变道意图，存在碰撞风险，即相邻车道目标车辆危险变道。 在这种情况下，主要目标是维护主体车辆的安全。 这样，直接选择相邻车道的目标车辆作为目标车辆； 那是，

As shown in Figure 17, in certain cases, the preceding vehicle will cease changing lanes and return to its original lane. When this cancellation is detected, if the target vehicle is directly changed back to the target vehicle in the current lane, the longitudinal acceleration of the subject vehicle will inevitably fluctuate due to the jump of the target vehicle.
如图17所示，在某些情况下，前车会停止变道，返回原车道。 当检测到这种取消时，如果目标车辆直接变回当前车道中的目标车辆，则目标车辆的纵向加速度将不可避免地由于目标车辆的跳跃而波动。

When the lane-changing intention of the target vehicle in the adjacent vehicle changes from 1 to zero, and dy ,adjacentlane exceeds 0.875 m, it can be determined that the target vehicle in the adjacent vehicle has cancelled the lane change. Under lane-changing cancellation conditions, the target vehicle state is calculated as
当邻近车辆中的目标车辆的换道意图从1变化为0，并且 $d_{y,adjacentlane}$ 超过0.875m时，可以确定邻近车辆中的目标车辆取消了换道。 在换道取消条件下，目标车辆状态计算为

where d y,cancel is the lateral relative distance of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane relative to the center line of the lane in which the subject vehicle is located, and αcancel is the value of α when the target vehicle in the adjacent lane is first detected as canceling the lane-changing intention.
式中，$d_{y,cancel}$ 为相邻车道目标车辆相对于本车所在车道中心线的横向相对距离，${\alpha }_{cancel}$ 为相邻车道目标车辆第一次被检测到取消变道意图时的 $\alpha$ 值。
During the lane-changing cancellation process of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane, dy,adjacentlane varies from d y,cancel to 2.875 m (when the lateral relative distance of the target in the current lane exceeds 2.875 m, this target can be considered as the target in the adjacent lane), and β smoothly transfers from αcancel to zero.
相邻车道目标车辆换道取消过程中，$d_{y,adjacentlane}$ 从 $d_{y,cancel}$ 变化到 2.875 m（当前车道目标车辆横向相对距离超过 2.875 m 时，可以认为该目标为相邻车道中的目标），并且 $\beta$ 从 ${\alpha }_{cancel}$ 平滑地转移到0。

5 Longitudinal Motion Control Algorithm

Depending on whether a target vehicle is ahead, the longitudinal motion control can be divided into speed control and following control. When no target vehicle is in front of the subject vehicle, only speed control is applied. For speed control, only the subject vehicle’s speed vsubject must be kept at the set speed vset. Therefore, the control target in this mode is v → 0 and the position error can be directly set to zero:
根据目标车辆是否前方，纵向运动控制可分为速度控制和跟随控制。 当目标车辆前方没有目标车辆时，仅应用速度控制。 对于速度控制，只有主体车辆的速度 $v_{subject}$ 必须保持在设定速度 $v_{set}$ 。 因此，该模式下的控制目标为 $\Delta v\to 0$，位置误差可以直接设置为0：

When a target vehicle is in front of the subject vehicle, the control is that of following control, which controls the speed of the subject vehicle to match that of the target vehicle, to thereby maintain a safe distance between the two. The constant time–gap safe distance is selected as the safe distance in this work [27]; it is calculated as
当目标车辆在本车前方时，控制为跟随控制，控制本车的速度与目标车辆的速度匹配，从而保持两者之间的安全距离。 本文选择恒定时间间隙安全距离作为安全距离[27]； 计算公式为

where τh is the time gap constant, generally set to 1.2–2 s. d0 is the distance constant, generally set to 2–3 m. In this study, τh was set to 2 s, and d0 was set to 3 m.
其中 ${\tau }_h$ 为时间间隙常数，一般设置为 $1.2-2s$。 $d_0$ 为距离常数，一般设置为 2~3 m。 本研究中，${\tau }_h$ 设置为 2 s，$d_0$ 设置为 3 m。
In the following control, the subject vehicle speed must be kept the same as that of the target vehicle, and the distance dx between the subject and target vehicles must be controlled as the safe distance ddes; thus, the control target in this mode is v → 0, d → 0, where
在后续控制中，主体车辆速度必须与目标车辆保持相同，并且主体与目标车辆之间的距离 $d_x$ 必须控制为安全距离 $d_{des}$； 因此，该模式下的控制目标为 $\Delta v\to 0，\Delta d\to 0$，其中

A linear-quadratic regulator (LQR) controller was chosen to calculate the desired acceleration of the subject vehicle in this study. The balance state in the longitudinal motion control is v → 0, d → 0; thus, it is very suitable to use the LQR controller to calculate the desired acceleration of the subject vehicle. Meanwhile, the LQR controller can consider the weight of the input and state variables to ensure ride comfort during longitudinal motion control
在本研究中，选择线性二次调节器 (LQR) 控制器来计算目标车辆的所需加速度。 纵向运动控制时的平衡状态为 $\Delta v\to 0，\Delta d\to 0$； 因此，非常适合使用LQR控制器来计算目标车辆的期望加速度。 同时，LQR控制器可以考虑输入变量和状态变量的权重，以保证纵向运动控制时的乘坐舒适性
Time delays can arise between the actual acceleration aactual and inputted desired acceleration ades; these can be approximately represented by a one–order inertia element, as
实际加速度 $a_{actual}$ 和输入的期望加速度 $a_{des}$ 之间可能会出现时间延迟； 这些可以近似地用一阶惯性环节表示，如

where τd is the time delay between the actual acceleration aactual and the inputted desired acceleration ades, which was here set to 0.5 s.
其中 ${\tau }_d$ 是实际加速度 $a_{actual}$ 和输入的期望加速度 $a_{des}$ 之间的时间延迟，这里设置为0.5 s。
Selecting the state variable as x = [d, v, aactual]T and the input variable as ades, we can obtain the continuous state space equation for longitudinal acceleration control as
选取状态变量为 $x=[\Delta d,\Delta v,a_{actual}{]}^T$，输入变量为 $a_{des}$，可得纵向加速度控制的连续状态空间方程为

where atar is the acceleration of the target vehicle, which represents an interference term.
其中 $a_{tar}$ 是目标车辆的加速度，代表干扰项。
Discretizing the above continuous state space equation, we obtain
将上述连续状态空间方程离散化，我们得到

whereT is the control cycle.
其中是控制周期。
Because the ride comfort is sizably affected by the jerk (the derivative of the acceleration), the above-mentioned state space equation cannot take into account the weight of the jerk. Therefore, we expanded the discrete state space equation to an incremental form, and took the desired acceleration increment ades as an input to incorporate the weight of the jerk. The expanded state space equation is as follows:
由于乘坐舒适性受加加速度（加速度的导数）影响很大，因此上述状态空间方程无法考虑加加速度的权重。 因此，我们将离散状态空间方程扩展为增量形式，并将所需的加速度增量 $\Delta a_{des}$ 作为输入来纳入加加速度的权重。 扩展后的状态空间方程如下：

The objective function of the LQR controller is:
LQR控制器的目标函数为：

where u is the desired acceleration increment ades; ql1, ql2, ql3, ql4, and rl represent the weight of v, d, aactual, ades, and ades, respectively. Here, ql1 = 2, ql2 = 1, ql3 = 0, ql4 = 3, and rl = 3.
其中 $u$ 是所需的加速度增量 $\Delta a_{des}；q_{l1}、q_{l2}、q_{l3}、q_{l4}、r_l$ 分别表示 ${\Delta }_v、{\Delta }_d、a_{actual}、a_{des}、a_{des}$ 的权重。 这里，$q_{l1}=2、q_{l2}=1、q_{l3}=0、q_{l4}=3、r_l=3$。
After the desired acceleration of the subject vehicle was calculated by the LQR controller, it was necessary to control the actuator of the subject vehicle (i.e., the throttle opening and brake master cylinder pressure) to ensure that the actual acceleration of the subject vehicle approached the calculated desired acceleration. This paper first established the inverse dynamics model for the subject vehicle. Through this model, the feedforward control quantity of the actuator could be obtained. Owing to the deviation of the subject vehicle’s inverse dynamics model parameters and the presence of interference, it was difficult to make the actual acceleration approach the desired one stably via open– loop control alone. A large static error was produced. Therefore, to improve the accuracy and robustness of the longitudinal acceleration control, we took the deviation value between the actual vehicle acceleration and desired acceleration as the input, and we used the proportional-integral–derivative (PID) controller to calculate the feedback control quantity of the actuator.
LQR控制器计算出目标车辆的期望加速度后，需要控制目标车辆的执行器（即节气门开度和制动主缸压力）以确保目标车辆的实际加速度接近目标车辆的期望加速度。 计算出所需的加速度。 本文首先建立了该车辆的逆动力学模型。 通过该模型，可以获得执行器的前馈控制量。 由于被试车辆逆动力学模型参数的偏差以及干扰的存在，仅通过开环控制很难使实际加速度稳定地接近期望加速度。 产生了较大的静态误差。 因此，为了提高纵向加速度控制的精度和鲁棒性，我们以实际车辆加速度与期望加速度之间的偏差值作为输入，采用比例积分微分（PID）控制器计算反馈控制量执行器的。

6 Simulation and Discussion

Next, a co-simulation platform was built using Matlab/ Simulink, CarSim, and Prescan software, to verify the proposed algorithm. The scenario and sensor models were established in Prescan. The measurement data of the millimeter wave radar model in Prescan contain noise, which can simulate radar measurement data in the real world to a certain extent. The high-precision vehicle dynamics model was established in CarSim, and the simulation environment integration and control algorithm was established in Matlab/Simulink, as shown in Figure 18. Simulations were conducted under three different conditions: safe lane-changing, dangerous lane-changing, and lane-changing cancellation.
接下来，利用Matlab/Simulink、CarSim和Prescan软件搭建联合仿真平台，对所提出的算法进行验证。 场景和传感器模型是在 Prescan 中建立的。 Prescan中毫米波雷达模型的测量数据包含噪声，可以在一定程度上模拟现实世界中的雷达测量数据。 在CarSim中建立高精度车辆动力学模型，在Matlab/Simulink中建立仿真环境集成和控制算法，如图18所示。在安全换道、危险换道三种不同情况下进行仿真 ，以及取消变道。

6.1 Simulation Results under Safe Lane‑Changing Condition

To verify the effectiveness of the target vehicle selection algorithm proposed in this paper under safe lanechanging conditions, the following simulation conditions were designed in the co–simulation platform: Initially, the subject vehicle followed the preceding vehicle in the current lane at the set speed (25 m/s), and the longitudinal relative distance between the subject and preceding vehicle in the current lane was 50 m. A preceding vehicle was present in the left adjacent lane. The driving speed of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane at the start of the simulation was 18 m/s, and the longitudinal relative distance to the subject vehicle was 70 m. The preceding vehicle began to change lanes 5 s after the start of the simulation. The simulation results are shown in Figures 19 and 20.
为了验证本文提出的目标车辆选择算法在安全换道条件下的有效性，在联合仿真平台中设计了如下仿真条件： 初始，目标车辆以设定速度跟随当前车道上的前车（ 25 m/s），当前车道内主体与前车的纵向相对距离为50 m。 左侧相邻车道上有前车。 模拟开始时相邻车道前车的行驶速度为18m/s，与主车的纵向相对距离为70m。 模拟开始5秒后，前车开始变道。 仿真结果如图 19 和 20 所示。


At 6.6 s after the start of the simulation, the lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on the sliding window SVM detected that the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane intended to change lanes; here, the RDS was 1, which meant that the target vehicle in the adjacent lane had a lane-changing intention and there was no risk of collision, as shown in Figure 19(a)–(b). Therefore, the target vehicle selection algorithm fused the target vehicle in the current lane with that in the adjacent one. The result of the fusion is shown in Figure 19©–(d). The target vehicle smoothly transitioned from the target vehicle in the current lane (ID3) to that in the adjacent one (ID393). As shown in Figure 20(b)–©, when using the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system, the target vehicle jumped directly from the target vehicle in the current lane to that in the adjacent lane at 7.8 s. The lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on the sliding window SVM here designed identified the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle 1.2 s earlier than the traditional target vehicle selection method. In addition, the state of the target vehicle in the current lane changed suddenly at 9.4 s, as shown in Figure 19©–(d). This was because the target vehicle in the current lane was blocked and could not be detected by the subject vehicle sensors when the lane change of the target vehicle in the adjacent lane was completed.
仿真开始后 6.6 s，基于滑动窗口SVM的换道意图预测算法检测到相邻车道前车有换道意图； 此时，RDS为1，表示相邻车道目标车辆有变道意图，不存在碰撞风险，如 图19(a)~(b) 所示。 因此，目标车辆选择算法将当前车道中的目标车辆与相邻车道中的目标车辆融合。 融合结果如 图19( c)-(d) 所示。 目标车辆从当前车道（ID3）中的目标车辆平滑地过渡到相邻车道（ID393）中的目标车辆。 如 图20（b）-（c） 所示，当使用传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法时，目标车辆在7.8 s内直接从当前车道的目标车辆跳到相邻车道的目标车辆。 本文设计的基于滑动窗口SVM的换道意图预测算法比传统的目标车辆选择方法提前1.2 s识别出前车的换道意图。 此外，当前车道目标车辆的状态在9.4 s时突然发生变化，如 图19（c）-（d） 所示。 这是因为当相邻车道的目标车辆完成变道时，当前车道的目标车辆被遮挡，无法被目标车辆传感器检测到。
Figures 19(e) and 20(d) show the longitudinal acceleration curve of the subject vehicle under safe lane-changing conditions. It can be seen from the simulation results that the maximum longitudinal deceleration of the subject vehicle was 2.62 m/s2 during the entire control process, when using the proposed target vehicle selection algorithm here. When using the traditional target vehicle selection method, the maximum longitudinal deceleration of the subject vehicle was 3.90 m/s2. The target vehicle selection algorithm here proposed responded faster (1.2 s earlier) to the lane change of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane. Furthermore, the corresponding maximum longitudinal deceleration was reduced by 1.28 m/s2. This can effectively reduce the subject vehicle’s longitudinal acceleration fluctuations caused by the safe lane change of a preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane, and it thereby improves the riding comfort.
图19（e）和20（d） 显示了目标车辆在安全换道条件下的纵向加速度曲线。 从仿真结果可以看出，当使用本文提出的目标车辆选择算法时，在整个控制过程中目标车辆的最大纵向减速度为2.62 m/s2。 采用传统的目标车辆选择方法时，目标车辆的最大纵向减速度为3.90 m/s2。 这里提出的目标车辆选择算法对相邻车道中前车的车道变换响应更快（提前1.2秒）。 此外，相应的最大纵向减速度降低了1.28 m/s2。 这样可以有效减少相邻车道前车安全变道引起的本车纵向加速度波动，从而提高乘坐舒适性。

6.2 Simulation Results under Dangerous Lane‑changing Condition

Initially, the subject vehicle followed the preceding vehicle in the current lane at the set speed, the driving speed was 25 m/s, and the longitudinal relative distance between the subject and preceding vehicle in the current lane was 50 m. The driving speed of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane at the start of the simulation was 15 m/s, and the longitudinal relative distance to the subject vehicle was 70 m. The preceding vehicle began to change lanes 4.5 s after the start of the simulation. The simulation results are shown in Figures 21 and 22.
初始，本车以设定速度跟随当前车道前车，行驶速度为25m/s，本车与当前车道前车纵向相对距离为50m。 模拟开始时相邻车道前车的行驶速度为15 m/s，与主车的纵向相对距离为70 m。 模拟开始后 4.5 秒，前车开始变道。 仿真结果如图 21 和 22 所示。


At 5.5 s after the start of the simulation, the lanechanging intention prediction algorithm based on sliding window SVM detected that the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane had a lane-changing intention; here, the RDS was 2, which means that the target vehicle in the adjacent lane had a lane-changing intention and there was a risk of collision, as shown in Figure 21(a)–(b). In this case, priority should be given to the target vehicle in the adjacent lane. The result is shown in Figure 21©–(d).
仿真开始后5.5 s，基于滑动窗口SVM的换道意图预测算法检测到相邻车道前车有换道意图； 这里，RDS为2，意味着相邻车道的目标车辆有变道意图，存在碰撞风险，如 图21(a)-(b) 所示。 在这种情况下，应优先考虑相邻车道的目标车辆。 结果如 图21( c)-(d) 所示。
The target vehicle selection algorithm here proposed jumped directly from the target vehicle in the current lane to that in the adjacent one when the lane-changing intention was detected. According to Figure 22(b)–©, when using the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC algorithm, the target vehicle jumped directly from the target vehicle in the current lane to that in the adjacent lane at 6.25 s when the target vehicle in the adjacent lane crossed the lane line. The lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on the sliding window SVM identified the lane-changing intention of the preceding vehicle 0.75 s earlier than the traditional ACC target vehicle selection algorithm.
当检测到换道意图时，本文提出的目标车辆选择算法直接从当前车道中的目标车辆跳转到相邻车道中的目标车辆。 根据图 22( b)~( c)，采用传统 ACC 算法的目标车辆选择方法时，目标车辆在 6.25 s 时直接从当前车道的目标车辆跳到相邻车道的目标车辆。 相邻车道上的车辆越过车道线。 基于滑动窗口SVM的换道意图预测算法比传统ACC目标车辆选择算法提前0.75 s识别出前车换道意图。
Figures 21(e) and 22(d) show the longitudinal acceleration curve of the subject vehicle under dangerous lanechanging conditions. Figures 21(f) and 22(e) show the collision signal between the subject vehicle and the surrounding traffic vehicles. The simulation results show that the maximum longitudinal deceleration of the subject vehicle under the target vehicle selection algorithm here proposed and the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system both reached the maximum value of 4 m/s2. However, the proposed target vehicle selection algorithm responded faster (0.75 s earlier) to the lane change of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane. In Figures 21(f) and 22(e), the subject vehicle can be seen to collide with the target vehicle in the adjacent lane at 7.56 s when using the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system. Because of the proposed target vehicle selection method, the subject vehicle could decelerate 0.75 s in advance, and the minimum longitudinal relative distance between the subject and target vehicle in the adjacent lane was 4.5 m, effectively avoiding any collision.
图21（e）和22（d） 显示了目标车辆在危险换道条件下的纵向加速度曲线。 图21（f）和22（e） 显示了主体车辆与周围交通车辆之间的碰撞信号。 仿真结果表明，本文提出的目标车辆选择算法和传统ACC系统目标车辆选择方法下的主体车辆最大纵向减速度均达到最大值4 m/s2。 然而，所提出的目标车辆选择算法对相邻车道中前车的车道变换响应更快（提前0.75秒）。 在 图21（f）和22（e） 中，当使用传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法时，可以看到目标车辆在7.56 s时与相邻车道的目标车辆发生碰撞。 由于所提出的目标车辆选择方法，目标车辆可以提前减速0.75 s，相邻车道中目标车辆与目标车辆之间的最小纵向相对距离为4.5 m，有效避免了任何碰撞。

6.3 Simulation Results under Lane‑changing Cancellation Condition

Initially, the subject vehicle followed the preceding vehicle in the current lane at the set speed, the driving speed was 25 m/s, and the longitudinal relative distance between the subject and preceding vehicle in the current lane was 50 m. The driving speed of the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane at the start of the simulation was 20 m/s, and the longitudinal relative distance to the subject vehicle was 70 m. The preceding vehicle began to change lanes 4.5 s after the start of the simulation. The simulation results are shown in Figures 23 and 24.
初始，本车以设定速度跟随当前车道前车，行驶速度为25m/s，本车与当前车道前车纵向相对距离为50m。 模拟开始时相邻车道前车的行驶速度为20m/s，与主车的纵向相对距离为70m。 模拟开始后 4.5 秒，前车开始变道。 仿真结果如 图 23 和 24 所示。
At 5.7 s after the start of the simulation, the lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on the sliding window SVM detected that the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane had a lane-changing intention; here, the RDS was 1, which means the target vehicle in the adjacent lane had a lane- changing intention and there was no risk of collision, as shown in Figure 23(a)–(b). Therefore, the target vehicle selection algorithm fused the target vehicle in the current lane with that in the adjacent lane. The result of the fusion is shown in Figure 23©–(d). The target vehicle smoothly transitioned from the target vehicle in the current lane (ID3) to that in the adjacent lane (ID393).
仿真开始后5.7 s，基于滑动窗口SVM的换道意图预测算法检测到相邻车道前车有换道意图； 此时，RDS为1，表示相邻车道目标车辆有变道意图，不存在碰撞风险，如 图23( a)-(b) 所示。 因此，目标车辆选择算法将当前车道中的目标车辆与相邻车道中的目标车辆融合。 融合结果如 图23( c)-(d) 所示。 目标车辆从当前车道（ID3）的目标车辆平稳过渡到相邻车道（ID393）的目标车辆。

Before the lane change was completed, the proposed lane-changing intention prediction algorithm detected that the target vehicle in the adjacent lane cancelled the lane change maneuver at 7.8 s, and α was 0.58 at this time, as shown in Figure 23(a)–(b). If the target vehicle directly switches back to the target vehicle in the current lane, it will inevitably lead to the jump of the target vehicle. Therefore, it is necessary to select the target vehicle according to the target vehicle selection algorithm under the lane-changing cancellation condition, so that the target vehicle can smoothly transition back to the target vehicle in the current lane. The target vehicle information is shown in Figure 23©–(d).
在变道完成之前，所提出的变道意图预测算法在7.8 s时检测到相邻车道的目标车辆取消了变道动作，此时 $\alpha$ 为0.58，如 图23(a)– (b). 如果目标车直接切回当前车道的目标车，必然会导致目标车跳车。 因此，需要在换道取消条件下根据目标车辆选择算法来选择目标车辆，使得目标车辆能够平滑地过渡回当前车道的目标车辆。 目标车辆信息如 图23( c)-(d) 所示。
When using the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system, the target vehicle jumped directly from the target vehicle in the current lane to that in the adjacent lane, because the target vehicle in the adjacent lane crossed the left lane line at 6.6 s. Furthermore, at 8.3 s, because the target vehicle in the adjacent lane crossed the left lane line and returned to its original lane, the target vehicle switched from the target vehicle in the adjacent lane back to that in the current lane. Figures 23(e) and 24(d) show the longitudinal acceleration of the subject vehicle under the lane-changing cancellation condition. It can be seen from the simulation results that the maximum longitudinal deceleration of the subject vehicle was 1.94 m/s2 during the entire control process, when using the target vehicle selection algorithm proposed in this paper. When using the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system, the maximum longitudinal deceleration of the subject vehicle was 3.70 m/s2. The maximum longitudinal deceleration was reduced by 1.28 m/s2. However, the maximum acceleration was almost identical. This is because at the current speed, the acceleration of the subject vehicle was limited, which means that, within 8.5–10 s of the start of the simulation, the throttle opening of the subject vehicle had reached 100%. However, from the desired acceleration curve, it can also be seen that through the smooth transition of the target vehicle, the maximum desired acceleration was reduced by 1.14 m/s2 when using the proposed target vehicle selection algorithm (the maximum desired acceleration was 2.24 m/s2) compared with the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system (the maximum desired acceleration was 3.38 m/s2).
当使用传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法时，目标车辆直接从当前车道的目标车辆跳到相邻车道的目标车辆，因为相邻车道的目标车辆在6.6 s时越过左侧车道线。 此外，在8.3 s时，由于相邻车道的目标车辆越过左侧车道线并返回原来的车道，因此目标车辆从相邻车道的目标车辆切换回当前车道的目标车辆。 图23（e）和24（d）示出了在换道取消条件下目标车辆的纵向加速度。 从仿真结果可以看出，采用本文提出的目标车辆选择算法时，被试车辆在整个控制过程中的最大纵向减速度为1.94 $m/s^2$。 采用传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法时，目标车辆的最大纵向减速度为3.70 $m/s^2$。 最大纵向减速度降低了1.28 $m/s^2$。 然而，最大加速度几乎相同。 这是因为在当前速度下，被试车辆的加速度受到限制，这意味着在模拟开始后的8.5-10秒内，被试车辆的油门开度已达到100%。 然而，从期望加速度曲线也可以看出，通过目标车辆的平滑过渡，使用所提出的目标车辆选择算法时，最大期望加速度降低了1.14 $m/s^2$（最大期望加速度为2.24 $m/s^2$）与传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法（最大期望加速度为3.38 $m/s^2$）进行比较。

7 Conclusions

In this paper, a target vehicle selection algorithm based on the prediction of the preceding vehicle’s lane-changing intention was proposed. This lane-changing intention was identified by the lane-changing intention prediction algorithm based on the sliding window SVM, as trained on the NGSIM dataset. The lane-changing intention prediction algorithm proposed in this paper was applicable to the preceding vehicle both in the current lane and in the adjacent one. Through comparisons with the target vehicle selection method of the traditional ACC system, the simulation results indicate that the target vehicle selection algorithm proposed in this paper can respond to the lane change of the preceding vehicle in advance, thereby effectively reducing the longitudinal acceleration fluctuation and avoiding collisions under dangerous lanechanging conditions.
本文提出了一种基于前车换道意图预测的目标车辆选择算法。 这种换道意图是通过基于滑动窗口 SVM 的换道意图预测算法来识别的，并在 NGSIM 数据集上进行训练。 本文提出的换道意图预测算法适用于当前车道和相邻车道的前车。 通过与传统ACC系统的目标车辆选择方法对比，仿真结果表明，本文提出的目标车辆选择算法能够提前响应前车变道，从而有效减小纵向加速度波动，避免 在危险的变道条件下发生碰撞。
As future work, the trajectory of the preceding vehicle will be predicted, to further improve the driving safety of the subject vehicle. Meanwhile, the proposed algorithm will be verified on a real vehicle platform, to verify the real–time ability of the algorithm and its robustness to interference in real road environments.
作为未来的工作，将预测前车的轨迹，以进一步提高目标车辆的行驶安全性。 同时，所提出的算法将在实车平台上进行验证，以验证算法的实时能力及其对真实道路环境干扰的鲁棒性。