## Situation-Aware Left-Turning Connected and Automated Vehicle Operation at Signalized Intersections

Sakib Mahmud Khan, and Mashrur Chowdhury, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract -  One  challenging  aspect  of  the  Connected  and Automated  Vehicle  (CAV)  operation  in  mixed  traffic  is  the development  of  a  situation-awareness  module  for  CAVs.  While operating on public roads, CAVs need to assess their surroundings, especially the intentions of non-CAVs. Generally, CAVs demonstrate a defensive driving behavior, and CAVs expect other non-autonomous entities on the road will follow the traffic rules  or  common  driving  behavior.  However,  the  presence  of aggressive human drivers in the surrounding environment, who may  not  follow  traffic  rules  and  behave  abruptly,  can  lead  to serious safety consequences. In this paper, we have addressed the CAV  and  non-CAV  interaction by evaluating a situationawareness module for left-turning CAV operations in an urban area.  Existing  literature  does  not  consider  the  intent  of  the following vehicle for a CAV's left-turning movement, and existing CAV controllers do not assess the  following non-CAV's intents. Based on our simulation study, the situation-aware CAV controller module reduces up to 27% of the abrupt braking of the following non-CAVs for scenarios with different opposing through movement compared to the base scenario with the autonomous vehicle,  without  considering  the  following  vehicle's  intent.  The analysis  shows  that  the  average  travel  time  reductions  for  the opposite through traffic volumes of 600, 800, and 1000 vehicle/hour/lane are 58%, 52%, and 62%, respectively, for the aggressive  human  driver  following  the  CAV  if  the  following vehicle's intent is considered by a CAV in making a left turn at an intersection.

Index Terms -connected automated vehicle, autonomous vehicle, situation-aware, V2I, aggressive, rear-end

## I. INTRODUCTION

ith the emergence  of  innovative  computation  and networking  solutions,  and  novel  sensor  technology, Connected Automated Vehicle (CAV) will be mainstream in the future transportation system. However, CAVs will have to co-exist with the non-CAVs (i.e., human-driven vehicles) in the foreseeable  future,  and  interacting  with  other  surrounding objects for the shared roadway spaces can be challenging for CAVs [1], [2]. CAVs are operated by programmable controller software, and the logics embedded in the controller software are based  on  traffic  rules  and  common  driving  norms/code  of conduct. By default, CAVs are programmed to be 'defensive', which implies that the controllers are not allowed to violate any W

traffic rules. On the contrary, the driving behavior of different human  drivers  varies  significantly.  Based  on  the  weather effects, and demography, psychology, and physical condition of the driver, humans can behave significantly different from each other.  The  driving  behavior  can  also  change  due  to  the surrounding road conditions, and lack of available journey time [3]-[5]. In terms of aggressiveness, driver behavior can range anywhere from aggressive to non-aggressive and anything inbetween. Dukes et al. (2001) classified aggressive drivers as active aggressive drivers (who behave abruptly) and passiveaggressive drivers (who induce others to act aggressively, e.g., driving  slow  and  blocking  others)  [6].  Due  to  the  aggressive nature  of  human  drivers,  a  human  can  accelerate/decelerate abruptly,  and  maintain  very  little  headway  while  following vehicles in front of them. This behavior often results in road rages or serious crashes. In urban areas, the presence of traffic signal controls could often lead to aggressive driving behavior [5]. The following aggressive driver can cause rear-end crashes if the leading  vehicle  suddenly  decides  not  to  cross  the intersection and applies the brake. Also, if the front vehicle does not make any turn during the permissive phase, the following aggressive vehicle has to face a longer waiting time, and this can  lead  to  road  rage.  The  complicated  interactions  between CAVs  (connected  driverless  vehicles  with  software  making decisions based on input from in-vehicle sensors and wireless communication with the outside entities, such as other connected vehicles and roadside infrastructure) and non-CAVs (human-driven  vehicles)  result  in  varying  driving  behavior, which can lead to collisions in a mixed traffic scenario where both CAVs and non-CAVs coexist and share the same physical space.  According  to  a  real-world  Autonomous  Vehicle  (AV) crash database, such conflicts between AVs and non-AVs exist [7]. Multiple studies found  that the rear-end crash type dominates the total AV-related crash types in a mixed traffic scenario (i.e. traffic contains both AVs and non-AVs) [7]-[10]. For almost all of these rear-end crash cases, the primary reason was the following human driver applying poor braking and/or being distracted [7]. The conservative behavior of AVs is found to lead to potential conflicts with other non-AVs in the mixed traffic scenario [11]. The existing hierarchical planning architectures  for  AV  controllers  have  a  behavioral  planning component  where  AVs  decide  about  actions  based  on  the

Sakib Mahmud Khan is with Center for Connected Multimodal Mobility, Clemson University, SC 29631 USA (e-mail: sakibk@g.clemson.edu).

Mashrur Chowdhury is the Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 USA (e-mail: mac@clemson.edu).

Fig. 1. Situation-aware CAV operations

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-109bbf02-393f-4909-8a1a-62bc259f7db9.jpg)

estimated location, size, and speed of surrounding vehicles [11], [12],  and  it  can  include  the  intentions  of  following  vehicles. Existing literature does not consider the intent of the following vehicle for the left-turning movement [13]-[16]. A few studies have discussed the aggressiveness of AVs with AVs showing human-like aggressive behaviors and found that the imitation of human driving behavior could improve traffic operation and safety [11], [17]. However, existing left-turning CAV controllers do not assess the following vehicle's intent. Based on a 28-month Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement Reports Database  (September  2014-January  2017),  89%  of  the  total crashes for Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) occurred at intersections, 69% of the total crashes occurred with AV speed less than 2.24 ms-1 (5mph), and 58% of the crashes were rearend  caused  by  human  drivers  following  an  AV  [9].  A  2016 survey found that 37% of Americans among 2,264 participants were concerned about the interaction of AVs and non-AVs [18].

In this research, we specifically focus on scenarios in an urban Transportation  Cyber-Physical  Systems  (TCPS)  environment where CAVs operate in the mixed traffic stream, as shown in

Fig. 1(a). In an urban TCPS, the physical components include CAV sensors and actuators, traffic signal controllers, roadside units,  and  video  cameras  [19]-[21].  The  cyber  components include wireless communication, CAV controller software, and computing  software  in  the  roadside  unit.  Based  on  the  invehicle sensor captured data about the surrounding environment, the CAV controller manages the CAV movement [22]. The objective of this research is to develop and evaluate a situation-aware CAV controller module, which will operate in response to an aggressive human driver and consider the intent of aggressiveness  in  the  CAV  decision-making  controller module. As shown in Fig. 1(a), the contribution of this study is the development of a situation-aware CAV controller module, which considers  the  following  human-driven  vehicle's  intent while making a left-turn at an intersection to minimize abrupt braking, and/or to minimize the waiting time of the following human-driven  vehicles.  The  situation-aware  CAV  operation will  be  influenced  by  external  factors  (e.g.,  congested  traffic conditions,  extreme  weather,  etc.),  and  the  integration  of  an Internet  of  Things  (IoT)  environment  can  assist  the  CAV

operation in these events. Fig. 1(b) shows the interconnection of situation-aware CAV operation with other CPSs for an IoT environment, where data are exchanged, processed, and stored following a TCPS-incorporated IoT architecture [23], [24]. IoT connects different TCPS components, such as vehicles, people, and transportation infrastructure at different layers, with other CPSs,  such  as  weather  management  CPS  and  emergency management CPS, to support the situation-aware CAV operations. For example, our situation-aware CAV operations will  be  affected  by  the  roadway  weather  conditions  at  the intersection which will require the IoT services to provide realtime  coordination  between  TCPS  and  weather  management CPS (shown in Fig. 1(b)). Also, emergency management CPS can be activated if any collision happens due to the interaction between  the  aggressive  driver  and  CAV  in  the  IoT-enabled scenario.  Inside  TCPS,  other  systems,  such  as  intersection management CPS, can simultaneously operate with the situation-aware CAV CPS. With the IoT integration, once the presence of an aggressive vehicle is detected by a CAV, the information  can  be  shared  with  the  intersection  management CPS controller and other CAVs in the surrounding areas with the available communication  options. The  arrival of the aggressive  human  driver  can  trigger  sufficient  green  time allocation at the traffic signals for a specific approach, to avoid any unwanted conflict with vehicles coming to the intersection from any other approaches.

This research focuses on developing a situation-aware CAV controller module that will enable safe and efficient left-turns at an intersection considering the following vehicle's aggressiveness. The  controller module  avoids  any  abrupt braking incidents and minimizes the intersection wait time of the following  vehicle.  Situation-aware  CAVs  dynamically identify the intent of the following  vehicle  using  sensor captured  data  and  adjust  speed  in  real-time  to  reach  the intersection. A video camera at the intersection will monitor the opposite through traffic stream, and using Vehicle-toInfrastructure or V2I communication, the information will be communicated to the CAVs. In the future, when all vehicles will be connected, the gap information can be derived from the connected vehicle data using Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication. CAVs will identify the appropriate gaps in the opposite  through  traffic  stream  and  accelerate/decelerate  to reach the intersection to capture the appropriate gaps and clear the shared lane, which will be used by the following vehicle to move in through direction and clear the intersection.

The following Section II discusses related studies of aggressive driver identification, rear-end collision minimization, and situation-aware CAVs. Section III discusses the situation-aware CAV  operation in an urban TCPS environment.  Base  AV  operations,  without  considering  the following vehicle's intent, are discussed in Section IV. Sections V and VI discuss the evaluation scenario and findings from this research. Finally, Section VII elaborates on the conclusions and future research.

## II. RELATED STUDY

The following subsections discuss the related studies about rear-end collision mitigation approaches, situation-aware CAVs, and driver aggressiveness. Literature related to the rearend  collision  avoidance  strategies  and  situation-aware  CAVs emphasizes  the  fact  that  existing  left-turning  AV  controllers still lack a mechanism  to  avoid  collisions  based  on  the following human driver's intent. While developing such a CAV controller module, we used existing research on driver aggressiveness to identify which parameters should be used by a  CAV  controller  to  detect  aggressiveness  of  the  following vehicle.

## A. Rear-end Collision Mitigation

The sudden brake by following aggressive human drivers can increase  the  likelihood  of  rear-end  crashes.  The  aggressive driving behavior (i.e., speeding) was the contributing factor in 26%  of  all  traffic  fatalities  in  2017  [25].  For  autonomous vehicles, based on the 28-months Autonomous Vehicle Disengagement  Reports  Database  (September  2014-January 2017), 58% of the crashes were rear-ended, where the following vehicles were human-driven [9]. In one study, the authors found tactile  and  audible  collision  warning  systems  can  reduce  the rear-end collision events for human drivers by increasing the brake response time, while the drivers were engaged in a cell phone conversation [26]. In a similar study, to identify the rearend collision mitigation method for human drivers, the authors found that the audio and visual warning assisted to release the accelerator faster by the human drivers to avoid a potential rearend crash [27]. Due to the faster accelerator release response, drivers  could  apply  brakes  gradually  to  avoid  a  collision. Another rear-end collision mitigation system for human drivers was the use of a green signal countdown timer, which was found to reduce rear-end crashes during the yellow interval [28]. The rear-end collision anticipation warning can be provided using vehicle-to-vehicle  communication.  As  the  rear-end  collision avoidance application needs to satisfy strict delay constraints, the authors in one study developed  a rear-end collision avoidance strategy using IEEE 802.11 standard and multi-hop broadcast system [29]. Using simulated single-lane and multilane scenarios, the rear-end crash avoidance strategy reduced almost all rear-end crashes for the following vehicles. AVs still lacks a mechanism  to  avoid  rear-end crashes when  the following vehicle is a human driver [9]. In this study, we have developed such a control module for left-turning autonomous vehicles  to  reduce  the  rear-end  crash  possibility  and  reduce road-rage events.

## B. Situation-aware CAV

Earlier research developed the situation-awareness for AVs based  on  the  Partially  Observed  Markov  Decision  Process, where  an  autonomous  agent  chooses  a  policy  for  taking  an action, without knowing the system state, to maximize rewards [30]. The authors considered intention recognition and sensing uncertainties  in  the  framework  and  measured  the  conflicting vehicle  intention  with  respect  to  speed.  Compared  to  the reactive  approach,  the  situation-aware  autonomous  vehicle showed  fewer  failure  rates  in  different  scenarios  (such  as interacting  at  roadways  with  T-intersection  and  roundabout),

meaning autonomous vehicles did not always purposefully give way to the conflicting vehicles. Rather, autonomous vehicles acted proactively to reduce the waiting time. A similar method was  used  in  another  research,  where  the  authors  used  four parameters (i.e., distance to the intersection, yaw rate, speed, and  acceleration) to identify each vehicle's intent at an unsignalized  intersection  [31].  The  reward  function  includes reward due to adherence to the traffic law, reduction in travel time and improvement in safety. Using Prescan software, the autonomous  vehicles  were  modeled  and  using  a  driving simulator, research participants drove the human-driven vehicles.  The  analysis  showed  that,  without  considering  the human intention, the autonomous vehicles were confused about whether to cross the intersection. In another study, the authors discussed  the  use  of  temporal  domain  prediction  instead  of spatial domain prediction to predict uncertainty in other agent's intent [32]. For autonomous agents, the authors showed that the required time to reach a destination, and maneuvering time can be  designed  as  a  Gaussian  distribution.  With  Monte  Carlo simulations,  the  authors  demonstrated  that  the  autonomous vehicle can safely maneuver through roundabouts while considering other vehicle's predicted position in future times. In order to reduce conflicts among multiple agents, one study investigated  the empathic  autonomous  agent  which  made decisions based on a utility function (this function depends on the  acceptability  of  any  action  by  all  agents,  based  on  the action's future consequences)  of  everyone  in  the  driving environment [33]. Here, the empathic autonomous agent made the decision that was acceptable to everyone. In another study, autonomous vehicles considered the yielding intent of merging vehicles on the freeway entrance ramp [34]. Using  the acceleration  value  of  the  merging  vehicle,  the  intent  of  the merging vehicle was recognized. Upon recognizing the intent, an autonomous vehicle would generate candidate strategies to minimize  a  cost  function,  which  avoids  conflict,  passenger discomfort, excess fuel consumption, and undesirable operational outcomes. If the merging vehicles did not show the intent to yield, autonomous vehicles would slow down to avoid conflict. In this research, we have developed a situation-aware CAV controller module for one of the most critical interactions between  CAVs  and  following  aggressive  vehicles,  which results in the most prominent crash type, i.e., rear-end crash, for real-life autonomous vehicles [9].

## C. Driver Aggressiveness Identification

The aggressive driver behavior was previously studied using data  from  the  smartphone,  where  the  authors  identified  the acceleration  behavior  of  both  aggressive  and  non-aggressive drivers to provide feedback in real-time to the corresponding drivers about their driving behavior [35]. The  types of aggressive behavior included excess speeding, abrupt braking, lane  changes,  and  aggressive  U-turns.  The  authors  in  [35] considered the driver experience and road surface condition to identify  the  boundary  values  of  acceptable  longitudinal  and lateral  accelerations.  The  smartphone-based  GPS  sensor  was used to obtain the real-time acceleration rate of the vehicle, and when the acceleration exceeds the allowable threshold, drivers can be alerted about their aggressive behavior in real-time. In another study, the aggressiveness behavior of a subject vehicle was  identified  based  on  the  vehicle's  current  lane  deviation possibility,  speed  and  estimated  collision  time  with  the  front vehicle [36]. The authors used both an in-vehicle sensor and camera sensor to collect the required data and trained a machine learning-based  classifier (i.e., support  vector  machine)  to identify  aggressive  driving  behavior.  The  machine  learningbased  classifier  achieved  93%  accuracy  to  classify  drivers according to their aggressive driving behavior. Vehicle trajectory  data  was  used  in  another  study,  where  the  authors used relative speed, average speed, distance to leading vehicles, longitudinal jerk and lane change data from the I80 corridors in California to identify driving behavior of a subject vehicle [37]. The authors interviewed 100 participants (whose driving data were not included in the I80 database) to identify the driving behavior and level of attentiveness of the subject vehicle driver. The driving behavior identification  module was incorporated into  a  simulated  vehicle  navigation  system  to  ensure  safe navigation. Both speed and lateral and longitudinal acceleration were used to derive the mathematical model of driver aggressiveness in another study, where the authors used realworld  data  from  vehicles  [38].  The  authors  developed  a classifier using  Gaussian  Mixture  Models  and  maximumlikelihood,  which  achieved  a  92%  accuracy  to  identify  each driver's behavior. In another study, the authors used acceleration and speed of the leading vehicle, and the time gap between the  leading  vehicle  and  following  vehicle  to  cluster different driving behaviors [39]. Based on the driving behavior and  acceleration  of  the  leading  vehicle,  the  car-following behavior was found to be linearly stable. Vehicle data from the I80 corridors in California, available via the Next Generation Simulation  database,  were  used  to  develop  the  car-following model.  In  this  research,  the  driver's  intent  of  the  following vehicle  needs  to  be  identified.  In  an  urban  TCPS,  with  the following  vehicle's  acceleration/deceleration  rate  [34],  [38], [39],  we  can  directly  estimate  whether  the  following  vehicle will slow down while following the leader left-turning CAV. However, time headway is another important parameter [39], as with time headway we can monitor how closely the following vehicle  is  following  the  leader  CAV  in  the  urban  area.  A closely-following vehicle is considered to be more aggressive, compared to the following vehicle maintaining a high headway. Thus  we  have  used  both  the  acceleration  of  the  following vehicle  and  time  headway  between  the  subject  vehicle  and following vehicle to identify the following vehicle's aggressiveness in this study.

## III. SITUATION-AWARE LEFT-TURNING CAV OPERATION

Steps  associated  with  the  situation-aware  left-turning  CAV operation, as shown in Fig. 2(a), are: (A) detect the following vehicle's intent, (B) predict future traffic state of the opposite traffic lane, (C) identify a gap in the opposite traffic, and (D) optimize CAV movement. In this paper, the speed profile of the turning CAV is modeled following an earlier study [13]. Other components of the framework (i.e., steps (A), (B), (C), and rest part of step (D) including the inflow and outflow optimization)

## (a) Steps for the CAV left turn decision module

Situation-aware left-turning CAV module components

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-c069a8fc-13a4-4ae7-92d3-63b9e9297fa1.jpg)

(b) Fig. 2. CAV left turn steps and decision module

are developed by us, the authors of this study. The situationaware left-turning CAV operates depending on the surrounding situation, which for this research is an aggressive behavior of the  following  vehicle.  If  the  following  vehicle's  intent  is identified, CAV can operate accordingly to prevent or minimize negative consequences, which include abrupt hard braking, and increased waiting time for the following vehicle. Predicting the future condition of the surrounding traffic helps to take proper actions by an autonomous vehicle [40]-[42]. In this case, the opposing  traffic  stream's  future  condition  will  dictate  the availability of the target gap at the intersection when the CAV will  arrive  at  the  intersection  stop  bar  to  initiate  the  left-turn maneuver  [43].  If  an  inaccurate  prediction  happens  while identifying  gap  in  the  opposite  traffic  stream,  the  in-vehicle sensors (camera, lidar) of the CAV will still be able to detect the incoming vehicles from the opposite direction after reaching the  intersection  stop  bar,  and  the  CAV  will  not  enter  the intersection. Such a case can lead to the following aggressive human  driver  applying  sudden  brake  as  the  CAV  will  keep waiting at the intersection. Finally, while taking the left turn, the CAV needs to confirm that adequate gaps are there so that there will be no direct conflict with the opposite through traffic stream and the subject CAV. The four steps, as shown in Fig. 2(a), are discussed in the later subsections.

Fig.  2(b)  shows  the  components  for  the  situation-aware control module for left-turning CAVs. The sensors used by this module include a rear-view camera, a GPS sensor, and a V2I communication radio. Earlier studies found that CAV operations  can  be  improved  if  external  data  can  be  utilized through V2X wireless communication [19], [44]. Using these sensors, the intent of the following vehicle (from the rear-view camera) and gaps in the opposite through traffic stream (from V2I communication radio using the analyzed intersection video feed from the roadside unit) are identified. If all vehicles are connected,  the  gap  information  can  be  derived  from  the connected vehicle data using Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication without any need  for cameras installed at an intersection. The GPS sensor is used to identify the location of the CAV. Using the rear-view camera, the relative position of the  following  vehicle  is  identified.  Based  on  the  relative position of the following aggressive vehicle and the CAV's own position, the position of the following vehicle is identified. The planning  sub-module  predicts  the  future  possible  gap  in  the opposite through traffic stream and identifies how CAV should operate in terms of a left turn at an intersection  based on the existing road traffic conditions, and traffic signal status, while also considering the speed limit of major and minor streets. This sub-module identifies the final speed to be achieved by a CAV to  reach  and  clear  the  intersection.  Based  on  the  criteria identified by the planning sub-module, the control sub-module runs  the  optimization  to  estimate  the  speed  profile  to  be followed by the CAV.

## A. Intent Recognition of Following Vehicles

As  discussed  earlier,  the  following  vehicle  can  show  either aggressive or non-aggressive behavior. To identify the intent, CAVs can consider  the  data  regarding  the  following  vehicle captured by its sensors. Different sensors can be used to obtain data from the following vehicles, and different types of data can be used. These sensors include radar, camera, and LIDAR [45]. In  this  research,  we  have  considered  the  following  vehicle's acceleration,  and  time  headway  between  the  CAV  and  the following vehicle to identify the intent of the following vehicle. The CAV follows a decision-making framework, shown in Fig. 3(a), for its left-turn maneuver. At first, it detects if there is any following vehicle. If the following vehicle is present, the CAV

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-e3a898a8-840a-45e1-b3e7-ae8454166c8a.jpg)

## (a) Intent recognition framework

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-75e36a10-fb2e-4d75-bfcb-3c1da85da66d.jpg)

(b) Probability of aggressiveness based on acceleration and headway

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-199263bb-f1bb-471d-875e-c749751003c5.jpg)

(c)  Probability of non-aggressiveness based on acceleration and headway

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-c4d4bf55-954b-4ffa-91c6-93eef7a570ee.jpg)

Fig. 3. Intent recognition framework and the probability of intent

sensor captures the data of the relative position of the following vehicle ∆𝑝𝑡1 at time t1. Based on its own position 𝑝𝑡1 (captured by the GPS sensor available in the CAV), and ∆𝑝𝑡1 , the position of the following vehicle 𝑝𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤,𝑡1 can be estimated using (1). Using  the  following  vehicle's  position  for  two  consecutive times, 𝑡 1 and 𝑡 2 , the speed 𝑣𝑡2 at time 𝑡 2 can be estimated using (2). From the 𝑣𝑡2 (calculated speed) and ∆𝑝𝑡1 (relative position of  the  following  vehicle  at  time 𝑡 2 ),  the  acceleration 𝑎𝑡2 and time  headway 𝑡ℎ𝑡2 of  the  following  vehicle  at  time t 2 can  be estimated using (3), and (4), correspondingly, as shown here

$$y \, o n \, \text{me} \\ \text{following} \quad & p _ { f o l l o w, t 1 } = p _ { t 1 } + \Delta p _ { t 1 } & ( 1 ) \\ \colon & \text{captured} \quad & v _ { t 2 } = \frac { p _ { f o l l o w, t 2 } - p _ { f o l l o w, t 1 } } { t _ { 2 } - t _ { 1 } } & ( 2 ) \\ \text{position} \\ \text{ing} \, ( 1 ). \quad & a _ { t 2 } = \frac { v _ { t 2 } - v _ { t 1 } } { t _ { 2 } - t _ { 1 } } & ( 3 ) \\ \text{secutive} \quad & t h _ { t _ { 2 } } = \frac { \Delta p _ { t 2 } } { v _ { t _ { 2 } } } & ( 4 ) \\ \text{ed using} \quad & \quad \text{To identify the probability of the following vehicle} \colon & \text{int}$$

$$v _ { t _ { 2 } }$$

To identify the probability of the following vehicle's intent, we have used Bayes Theorem [46]. Equations ((5), and (6)) can be used to derive the probability of aggressiveness ( A ) or nonaggressiveness ( NA ) based on the attitude ( Att ) of the following vehicle, as shown

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-b932e97a-19ea-4fea-8734-f77472768a23.jpg)

- (b) Interrupted profile #1 (interruption at the intersection by opposing vehicles)
- (a) Uninterrupted profile
- (c) Interrupted profile #2 (interruption along by slow vehicles preceding the CAV) path

(b) Conflict area for left-turn maneuver Fig. 4. Movement of CAV making a left-turn

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-8f4c60ee-f0ff-4c37-867d-aa4b59d5bb0c.jpg)

(c) CAV speed adjustment to reach the initial point of deceleration

P(A|Att)=

𝑃𝑟 (𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝐴) 𝑃(𝐴)

𝑃(𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝐴) 𝑃(𝐴)+𝑃(𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝑁𝐴) 𝑃(𝑁𝐴)

(5)

P(NA|Att)=

𝑃(𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝑁𝐴) 𝑃(𝑁𝐴)

𝑃(𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝐴) 𝑃(𝐴)+𝑃(𝐴𝑡𝑡|𝑁𝐴) 𝑃(𝑁𝐴)

(6)

The assumption is that there is an equal amount of chance for the following vehicle to be aggressive or non-aggressive. Thus P(A) and P(NA) is equal to 0.5. In order to get the P(A|Att) and P(NA|Att) ,  we  have  considered  that  the  aggressive  and  nonaggressive behaviors follow the distribution as  shown in Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 3(c), correspondingly. Studies conducted on urban arterials were reviewed to obtain the threshold values for both acceleration  and  time  headway  [47],  [48].  In  an  urban  area, 2𝑚𝑠 -2 acceleration is considered to be aggressive [48]. This value is considered as the mean of the Gaussian distribution and the  standard  deviation  is  considered  to  be 4 3 𝑚𝑠 -2 (when  the acceleration is less than 2𝑚𝑠 -2 ). Beyond the mean acceleration, the following vehicle will always be considered aggressive. As the CAV will have to decelerate, the following vehicle  should  slow  down,  and  the  non-aggressive  behavior would imply that the following vehicle is slowing down. Thus, the distribution with the mean deceleration of -2𝑚𝑠 -2 and the standard deviation of 4 3 𝑚𝑠 -2 is  considered as non-aggressive

(when  the deceleration is higher than the mean). With deceleration  less  than -2𝑚𝑠 -2 , the  following  vehicle  will always be considered non-aggressive. For time headway, a 1 second time headway is considered to be the mean of aggressive behavior, while a 2 seconds time headway represents a safe or non-aggressive behavior [47].

## B. Prediction of Future Vehicle State of Opposite Traffic Stream

Once a CAV identifies the intent of the following vehicle, it will look for an appropriate gap in the opposite through traffic stream.  The  information  about  the  opposite  through  traffic stream  will  be  provided  by  the  connected  roadside  unit, installed at the intersection via Dedicated Short-Range Communication,  or DSRC.  We  have  assumed  a  perfect communication channel for V2I communication in this study. This analysis can be extended to include communication delay and  reliability  following  previous  research  on  this  topic.  For vehicular  communication,  there  are  several  options  such  as DSRC,  5G,  LTE, and WiFi [19]. DSRC  is a popular communication  option  as  it  has  a  dedicated  spectrum  for vehicular communication. From  previous studies on the performance  of  DSRC  for  vehicular  networking,  it  has  been

observed that DSRC has very low communication delay (~2ms) and  high  reliability  within  a  short-range  (~300m),  which  is sufficient for covering any size of signalized intersection with line-of-sight conditions [49]-[51]. For non-line-of-sight (NLOS) conditions, DSRC suffers from high path loss because of its high operating frequency (~5.9 GHz). For longer range and  NLOS  conditions,  LTE  offers  a  better  alternative  of increased coverage [50], but has a higher delay than DSRC. 5G is an emerging technology that offers a use case called ultrareliable low-latency communication (URLLC), which would be appropriate for V2V and V2I applications [52], [53]. However, it  is  difficult  to  ensure  communication  reliability  using  one communication  method.  Heterogeneous  wireless  networking (HetNet)  offers  a  solution  to  this  problem,  in  which  a  CV automatically  scans  for  available  networking  resources  and performs horizontal or vertical handover when one communication channel is not available [54].

A camera installed at the intersection can be used to identify the gaps in the opposite through traffic and send them to the connected roadside unit for it to transmit to CAVs. In the future, when all vehicles will be connected, the gap information can be derived  from  the  connected  vehicle  data  using  Vehicle-toVehicle communication. The roadside unit estimates the opposite traffic arrival time assuming that the opposite through traffic stream will maintain a constant speed while reaching the intersection.  However,  this  assumption  is  not  valid  where human drivers can take different actions (i.e., accelerate, lane change)  at any given time when  they  are close to the intersection. Thus, when the CAV is at the intersection with an intent  to  initiate  the  left-turn,  the  gap  may  not  be  there.  To ensure  a  safe  left-turn,  the  CAV  will  assess  the  intersection condition after reaching the intersection, in real-time, and make a final decision whether to turn left based on the data from the CAV's cameras about the approaching opposite through traffic stream. Whenever the required gap is available, the CAV will initiate the left turn to safely cross the intersection and clear the path for the following vehicle.

## C. Opposite Traffic Stream Gap Estimation

While taking a left-turn manoeuver, two scenarios may exist. In the first one CAVs may not need to stop after reaching the intersection  if  there  is  a  gap  in  the  opposite  through  traffic stream right at that moment. CAV can take a left-turn without conflicting with any other vehicle after reaching the intersection at a minimum speed. This scenario can be handled by the CAV uninterrupted  inflow  and  outflow  speed  profile,  as  shown  in Fig.  4(a).  In  the  second  scenario,  the  interrupted  inflow  and outflow speed profile will be active as the CAV will have to stop  at  the  intersection  due  to  the  presence  of  approaching vehicles in the opposing through traffic stream. CAV will wait for the required gap to make a left-turn based on the arriving pattern of the opposing through vehicles and start the left-turn right away when the required gap is available.

For any two way corridor with 'm' number of opposite lanes and 'n' number of vehicles on the opposing lanes at a certain time  period,  we  have  defined  the  vehicle  sets  based  on  the vehicles' current lane and state (App for vehicles approaching the conflict area, and Pass or P for vehicles that will pass the conflict area). 𝑁𝐴, 𝑃 and 𝑁𝐵, 𝑃 are the sets of opposing through vehicles in lane 1 and 2, respectfully, that will pass the conflict area when CAV will reach the conflict area. 𝑁𝐴, 𝐴𝑝𝑝 and 𝑁𝐵, 𝐴𝑝𝑝 are  the  sets  of  opposing  through  vehicles  in  lane  1  and  2, respectfully, that will approach the conflict area when CAV will reach the conflict area.

Fig. 4(b) shows the conflict areas at the intersection for the left-turn maneuver with red bounding boxes. We assume that the CAV will follow a parabolic path while taking the left turn at the intersection [55], [56]. For a typical two-lane corridor, the distance to the conflict area of the opposite first lane from the intersection stop line is 𝐿2 , and the distance from the intersection stop line to the conflict area of the opposite first lane is (𝐿1 +𝐿2) , as shown in Fig. 4(b). These distances can be computed with the Arc Length ( AL ) equation of the parabolic path, as shown in (7).

$$\intertext { n to the } \intertext { \bullet } \text{ } \underset { \bullet } { \ A L } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \sqrt { b ^ { 2 } + 1 6 a ^ { 2 } } + \underset { \bullet } { \overset { b ^ { 2 } } { 8 a } } \ln \left ( \frac { 4 a + \sqrt { b ^ { 2 } + 1 6 a ^ { 2 } } } { b } \right ) \underset { \bullet } { \overset { b } { \bullet } } \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

For a left-turn parabolic path at the intersection, the length along the parabola axis ( a ) and perpendicular chord length ( b ) can  be  calculated  as 𝑎 = 2.5𝑤𝑙 and 𝑏 =  𝑤𝑙 for  a  typical corridor with two lanes in each direction of the major road. 𝑤𝑙 is the lane width, and 𝑤𝑐 𝑟 is the vehicle width. Here 𝑑𝑙 is the distance between the CAV direction stop line and the end of the conflict area. We have defined 𝑑𝑓 as the distance between the stop  line  at  lanes  from  which  a  CAV  will  start  the  left  turn maneuver and the start of the conflict area. We have defined a distance threshold for both sides of the conflict area compared to the parabolic path of the CAV. For the start and end of the conflict  points,  the  distance  thresholds  beyond  the  CAV's projected path are σ and σ+t , as shown in Fig. 4(b). Considering a two-lane-two-way corridor, both 𝑑𝑙 and 𝑑𝑓 from Fig. 4(b) for any CAV   can be calculated from the following (8), to (11). i Here the first lane means the closest opposite lane for the leftturning CAV, and the second lane means the farthest opposite lane, as shown in Fig. 4(b).

$$\stackrel { \dots \dots, \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta } { d _ { l - s e c o n d \, l a n e, i } } = 1. 4 1 4 1 \sqrt { w _ { l } } - \frac { w _ { c a r, i } } { \longrightarrow } - \frac { w _ { c a r, i } } { \longrightarrow } - \sigma, i \epsilon N _ { B, \, P } }$$

$$\inf _ { \substack { \text{the} \\ \text{ traffic} } } \quad d _ { l - f i r s t \, l a n e, l } ^ { \prime \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdclots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \colon \\ \int _ { \substack { \text{(10)} } } } \longrightarrow \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \min } } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi \pi \pi } - \frac { \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \p \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \nu \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \pi \min } } } \quad ( 1 0 )$$

$$\text{iy exist.} \underset { \min o \text{ the } } { d } _ { f - s e c o n d \, l a n e, i } = 1. 4 1 \overset { \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, } { \underset { \max \, w \dots \, t } { \sqrt { w } } } + \frac { \ddot { w } } { 2 } + \sigma + t, \, i \epsilon N _ { B, \, A p p } \, \quad \ \ ( 9 )$$

$$\text{$\Gamma$ array} \quad \cdot \, ^ { \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \
\text{without} \quad d _ { f - f i r s t \, l a n e, t } = \sqrt { w _ { l } } + \frac { w _ { c a r, i } } { 2 } + \sigma + t, \, i \epsilon N _ { A, \, A p p } \quad \quad \quad$$

## D. Optimization of CAV Movement while Avoiding Conflict

Once the following vehicle intention is known and gaps from the  opposite  through  traffic  stream  are  identified,  the  CAV controller  module  needs  to  estimate  its  speed  profile  for  the remaining  distance.  The  CAV  will  follow  the  speed  profile, shown in Fig. 4(a), to clear the path for the following vehicles, or  at  least  to  minimize  the  waiting  time  for  the  following aggressive  vehicle.  The  speed  of  the  turning  vehicle  can  be modeled as a function  of  time  with  the  polynomial  of  thirddegree as discussed in [13]. The slope of a speed profile means acceleration, and the slope of the acceleration profile is called a jerk. For an initial time, 𝑡 𝑜 we express the speed, acceleration

and jerk values as 𝑣𝑜 , 𝑎𝑜 and 𝐽 𝑜 . We have defined the slopes of the vehicle jerk as 𝒿 . The value of 𝑎𝑜 is zero. For any time  , the t jerk, acceleration  and  speed  can  be  calculated  using  the following (12), (13), and (14), respectively. The same equations can be applied to both inflow and outflow speed profiles.

𝐽

+𝒿𝑡

(12)

$$a _ { t } ^ { \prime } = a _ { o } + J _ { 0 } t + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \hat { J } t ^ { 2 } \Big. _ { 1 } \Big. _ { 2 } \Big. _ { 3 } \Big. _ { 4 } \Big. _ { 5 } \Big. _ { 6 } \Big. _ { 7 } \Big. _ { 8 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big. _ { 9 } \Big.$$

𝑡

= 𝐽𝑜

$$\nu _ { t } = \nu _ { o } + a _ { 0 } t + \frac { 4 } { 2 } J _ { o } t ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 6 } \not { j } t ^ { 3 } \\ \psi _ { t } \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \quad \text{ (14)}$$

To get the optimal speed profile, the optimization is computed in two steps. In the first step, the inflow speed profile is optimized using the optimized 𝒿 for the inflow. We minimize jerk at which  the  CAV  will  reach  the  intersection  (i.e., 𝐽 𝑇 𝑚𝑖𝑛 -𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ).  In  the  second  step,  based  on  the  output  of  the inflow optimization model, the outflow speed profile is optimized. Here we minimize the jerk at which the CAV will enter  the  minor  street  (i.e., 𝐽 𝑇 𝑚𝑖𝑛 -𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) .  The  input  of  the optimization model is the initial inflow speed, 𝑣𝑜-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 . The speed at which the CAV will reach the intersection needs to be close  to  zero,  so  the  target  speed  range  is  considered  to  be within 0.1 𝑚𝑠 -1 to 2.5 𝑚𝑠 -1 . 𝑎𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 is the acceleration of CAV after reaching the intersection, which is 0. The initial jerk (𝐽 𝑜-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) at the initial point of deceleration is confined within the boundary of 1.5 𝑚𝑠 -3 , as that is defined as the limit of the comfortable jerk [57]. The boundary values for the slope of  jerk  ( 𝒿𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) are  derived  from  [13].  The  optimization objective, constraints and decision variables are given below.

$$\stackrel { \kappa } { \text{Optimization objective for inflow} } \quad & \quad \kappa \\ \min \left ( J _ { T _ { \min } - i n f l o w } \right ) & & \quad \left ( 1 5 \right ) & \text{The desi} \\ & \text{A solout} \text{to} \text{.}$$

$$\text{Subject to}, & \text{$0.1$ $ms^{-1} < \nu_{T_{min}-inflow} < 2.5$ $ms^{-1}$} \\ - 1. 5 $ ms^{-3} < J _ { o - i n f l o w } < 1. 5 $ ms^{-3} \\ 0. 1 $ ms^{-4} < j _ { i n f l o w } < 0. 8 $ ms^{-4} \\ 0 $ s < T _ { \min - i n f l o w } < T _ { \min - i n f l o w, \max } \\ a _ { T _ { \min } - i n f l o w } = 0$$

$$\text{Decision variables}, \quad \text{$j_{inflow}$, $J_{o-inflow}$, $\nu_{T_{min}-inflow}$, $T_{min-inflow}$}$$

The maximum available time to reach the intersection stop line ( 𝑖𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤, ) can vary based on the traffic conditions and geometric characteristics of the corridor. Once the desired target  speed  ( 𝑣𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 -𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 )  from  the  initial  optimization  is available, the second optimization is conducted for the outflow model. For this outflow, the optimization model is provided in the following (16).

$$\begin{smallmatrix} \text{Optimization objective for outflow:} & & \text{accepted} \\ \min \, ( J _ { T _ { \min } - o u t f l o w } ) & & & ( 1 6 ) & \text{For this} \\ & & & & \text{...} \, \dots \, \dots \end{smallmatrix}$$

## Subject to,

$$\begin{smallmatrix} - \cdots _ { \nu } \cdots \cdots, \\ \nu _ { T } _ { \min - o u t f l o w, \min } < \nu _ { T } _ { \min - o u t f l o w } < \nu _ { T } _ { \min - o u t f l o w, \max } \\ - 1. 5 \ m s ^ { - 3 } < J _ { o - o u t f l o w } < 1. 5 \ m s ^ { - 3 } \end{smallmatrix}$$

$$\text{$\text{$of$}$} - 0. 2 \ m s ^ { - 4 } < \mathfrak { j } _ { o u t f l o w } < - 0. 6 \ m s ^ { - 4 } \\ \text{the} \quad & 5 \ s < T _ { m i n - o u t f l o w } < T _ { m i n - o u t f l o w, m a x } \\ \text{$a_{T_{min} - o u t f l o w } = 0$}$$

$$\begin{matrix} & \text{Decision variables}, \\ \mathcal { I }$$

The maximum and minimum boundary values of the speed (after  entering  the  side  street)  to  be  achieved  by  the  CAVs ( 𝑣𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑣𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) and the upper limit of time ( 𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤, ) depend on the minor street corridor. The initial jerk (𝐽 𝑜-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) at the beginning of the lest-turn is confined within the boundary of 1.5 𝑚𝑠 -3 [57]. The boundary values for the slope of jerk ( 𝒿𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 )  are  derived from  [13]. 𝑎𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 is  the  acceleration  of  CAV  after  entering  the minor  street,  which  is  0.  Once  the  optimization  is  done,  the distance  required  to  initiate  CAV  deceleration  to  reach  the intersection stop line ( 𝑑𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) can be estimated with the following (17), where 𝑑𝑜 is zero.

$$\begin{array} { l l } \leq \, \chi \, \chi & \$$

The point from which the CAV needs to slow down is shown as  'Initial  Point  of  Deceleration'  in  Fig.  4(a).  The  distance between this initial point of deceleration and the intersection stop line is 𝑑𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 . To reach the initial point of deceleration, the CAV adjusts its speed to reach the point soon. The desired speed ( 𝑣 ) to reach the slow down point can be calculated  simply  by  dividing  the  current  distance  from  the CAV to the initial point of deceleration with the available time. However, 𝑣 is  calculated  to  create  a  trapezoidal  shape  so that the CAV can smoothly increase its speed and slow down, as shown in Fig. 4(c). The CAV chooses the appropriate gap which it can utilize so that the speed to reach the initial point of deceleration, 𝑣 does  not  exceed  the  speed  threshold  (i.e., speed limit + 2.24 ms -1 (5 mph)).

## IV. BASE LEFT-TURNING AV OPERATION

Traditionally,  the  AV  does  not  have  any  communication capabilities  and  it  does  not  have  to  consider  the  following vehicle's intent (to yield or not yield) to make a left turn at the intersection.  The  AV  uses  the  front  camera  to  detect  the opposite  approaching  vehicle, and  based  on  the  distance between the AV and the opposing vehicles, the AV calculates the  gap  and  evaluates  if  the  gap  is  acceptable.  In  a  study conducted in California, the authors studied the  left-turn gap acceptance  value  from  1573  observations  [58].  For  human drivers, the authors found that the 15%, 50%, and 80% of the accepted gap lengths were 4.1, 6, and 8.6 seconds, respectively. For this study, after trial-and-error with the simulated scenario, we have found 5 seconds is the accepted gap for the AV leftturn maneuver. For gaps less than 5 seconds, a collision occurs between  AVs  and  the  opposite  through  non-AVs.  In  this scenario, the following vehicle starts the journey after 8 seconds of  the  leader  AV.  In  this  study,  two  base  AV  operations  are

considered,  one  operating  with  the  objective  of  travel  time minimization,  and  the  other  following  the  speed  limit  of  the road without having any performing any travel time optimization.

## A. Base AV Operation #1 without travel time minimization

In this method, the AV does not perform any optimization, rather it strictly follows the posted speed limit of the corridor while  approaching  the  signalized  intersection.  After  entering the corridor, the AV speeds up to the posted speed limit, if there is  no  obstacle  at  front.  AVs  use  in-vehicle  sensors  to  detect

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-e73939ba-da1d-42da-94ab-3f0c1a8fcaee.jpg)

- (a) Uninterrupted profile
- (b) Interrupted profile #1 (interruption at the intersection by opposing vehicles)

(c) Interrupted profile #2 (interruption along the path by slow vehicles preceding the AV)

Fig. 5. Base #2 AV operation with minimized travel time

objects in the surrounding environment while approaching the intersection and to find a gap in the opposite through vehicle stream while making a left-turn.

## B. Base AV Operation #2 with travel time minimization

We have adopted the AV operation developed by Fayazi and Vahidi  (2018),  where  the  AV  travel  time  for  a  signalized corridor is optimized in a mixed traffic environment [59]. We have  modified  the  AV  operation  formulation  as  our  study  is specifically for a left-turning AV. Our study assumes that AVs will strictly follow the posted speed limit while travel time is optimized. To clear the intersection area while making the leftturn, AVs solely rely on their sensors.

As shown in Fig. 5, a stopping distance ( 𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑝 ) is required by the AVs approaching the intersection to stop the vehicle if any conflicting vehicle is present at the intersection. It is calculated using (18), where 𝑡 𝑟 is the reaction time of AV (i.e., 0.5 second), 𝑣 is the maximum posted speed to be followed by the AV and 𝑎  𝑐 is the deceleration of AV (i.e., -1.5 𝑚𝑠 -2 ).

$$\begin{array} {$$

While at the intersection, the AV may or may not need to stop at the  intersection  stop  bar  based  on  the  left-turning  gap availability  (shown  with  speed  profile  a,  and  b  in  Fig.  5). However,  the  speed  of  AV  can  be  influenced  by  the  front vehicles in the same direction (shown with speed profile c in Fig. 5), and AV will need to apply emergency brake to stop and accelerate to achieve the recommended speed.

The travel time optimization formulation, as discussed in  [59]

reduces  the  travel  time  required  to  reach  the  initial  point  of 𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑝 , which is 𝑡𝑜𝑝 . At a certain timestamp 𝑂 , when the AV has just entered the corridor, the following  optimization initiates.

$$\begin{smallmatrix} \text{tion} & \text{Optimization objective for$$

Subject to,

$$\Gamma _ { \shortparallel } \Gamma _ { \shortparallel } \Gam$$

Decision variables,

𝑡𝑜𝑝 , 𝑣 𝑖𝑛 , 𝑎𝑖𝑛

Here 𝑣𝑖𝑛 and 𝑎𝑖𝑛 are the initial speed and acceleration to be followed by AV. 𝑑𝑖𝑛 is  the  distance between the AV's initial position (where the optimization occurs) to the initial location of 𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑝 , and ∆ 𝑡 𝑟𝑔 𝑡 is the time required by the AV to cross the distance 𝑑𝑖𝑛 . The boundary values of initial speed ( 𝑣𝑖𝑛 ) and the upper limit of time ( ) depend on the corridor. 𝑎𝑖𝑛 is confined  to  ensure  the  acceleration  is  within  a  comfortable range.  Once  the  optimization  is  solved,  the  AV  proceeds forward with 𝑣𝑖 and  achieve 𝑣 by ∆ 1 time  interval,  and maintains 𝑣 for  the ∆ 2 time  interval. ∆ 𝑡 𝑟𝑔 𝑡 is  the summation of ∆ 1 and ∆ 2 . After reaching the intersection, the AV relies on the in-vehicle sensors to make the left turn. In this operation, AVs do not have any wireless connectivity with the outside world.

## V. CASE STUDY

We have evaluated  the  situation-aware  left-turning  module for CAVs using a case study within a simulated environment. The  following  subsections  discuss  the  case  study  area,  base scenario, and situation-aware CAV module.

## A. Study Area

A case study is conducted with a simulated intersection from Perimeter Road, Clemson to evaluate the performance of the situation-aware CAV controller module. To simulate the nonCAVs of the mixed traffic stream, we have used Simulation of Urban  Mobility  (SUMO)  software,  while  to  simulate  CAVs (including in-vehicle sensors), the following aggressive vehicle,  and  communication  infrastructure,  we  have  used  a robot  simulator,  Webots  [60].  The  simulation  parameters  are listed in Table I. The aggressive human driver is simulated in a way  that  it  will  follow  the  posted  speed  limit,  and  will  not decelerate properly following the leading CAV. It will apply hard brake only when it is very close to the leading CAV, while the CAV is waiting to make a left turn at the intersection. The

Fig. 6. Situation-aware CAV tracking following vehicle

| Simulation Parameters                                                                               | VALUES                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opposite through traffic (SUMO)                                                                     | 600, 800 and 1000 vphpln                                                                     |
| Speed distribution of opposite through vehicle (SUMO)                                               | 95% of the vehicles drive within 70%-110% of the speed limit                                 |
| Major road speed limit Minor road speed limit Major road length Intersection roadside unit (Webots) | 13.4 ms -1 (30 mph) 7 ms-1 (15 mph) 337m (0.2 mile) emitter radio node,                      |
| CAV model (Webots)                                                                                  | range 300m (0.19 mile) BMWX5 Robot • Back camera node (with                                  |
| CAV sensors (Webots)                                                                                | • Distance sensor node (generic) • GPS node • Gyro node • Receiver radio node                |
| Base AV sensors (Webots)                                                                            | recognition mode on, max range 200m) • Distance sensor node (generic) • GPS node • Gyro node |

TABLE I CASE STUDY SIMULATION PARAMETERS

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-7cf79a6f-007a-4b45-8cd2-76cf3c8d6880.jpg)

major  corridor  of  this  intersection  has  two  lanes,  while  the minor corridor has one lane. We have evaluated the simulated network  with  multiple  scenarios  while  varying  the  opposite direction traffic. The traffic signal phase for the shared lane is considered to be permissive green, meaning left-turning vehicles need to wait for the appropriate gaps in the opposite through traffic stream. In this experiment, we have restricted the  lane-changing  capability  of  the  following  vehicle.  This scenario simply means that due to the presence of heavy traffic in the same direction, the following aggressive vehicle cannot make any lane change. The author has considered 600, 800, and 1000  vehicle  per  hour  per  lane  (vphpln)  opposite  through traffic.  For  the  non-CAVs, the speed distribution is set up in such a way so that 95% of the vehicles drive within 70%-110% of the speed limit. The speed limit of the corridor is 13.4 ms -1 (30 mph). The comparison of the base scenario and situationaware CAV is conducted based on 30 simulation runs for each scenario  with  different  approaching  through  traffic  volume from the opposite direction.

## B. Base Scenario with Autonomous Vehicle

In both AV scenarios (operating without and with travel time minimization), the following vehicle starts the journey after 8 seconds  of  the  leader  AV.  For  our  case  study,  the  boundary values  of  speed , 𝑣 𝑖𝑛- 𝑖𝑛 and 𝑣𝑖𝑛in the  base  #2  AV operation (with travel time minimization), are considered to be 11.5 and 12.5 ms -1 , respectively. The upper limit of time ( ) is  considered  to  be  60s.  The  maximum  posted  speed  to  be followed by the AV ( 𝑣 ) is 30 mph.

## C. Situation-aware CAV

The goal of the situation-aware CAV controller module is to clear the path from the shared lane for an aggressive through vehicle, so that the aggressive driver does not need to apply a hard brake. If no safe gap is available, the CAV will try to clear the path of the aggressive following vehicle by making a leftturn  as  soon  as  possible.  We  have  considered  the  maximum available time to reach the intersection stop line ( 𝑖𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤, )  as  60  seconds  for  this  analysis,  and  the maximum and minimum boundary values of the target speed (after  entering  the  side  street)  to  be  achieved  by  the  CAVs ( 𝑣𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑣𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛-𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) as 6 𝑚𝑠 -1 and 7 𝑚𝑠 -1 , respectively, based on the minor street speed limit from the study area. In this research, we have used the acceleration of the following vehicle and time headway between the CAV and  following  vehicle  to  identify  the  aggressiveness  or  nonaggressiveness of the following vehicle. The CAV uses a back view camera to capture data related to the following vehicles,

Fig. 7. Abrupt braking reduction by situation-aware CAV

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-716366d8-6a43-4d79-bc9a-549d4c751923.jpg)

using (1), to (4). The range of cameras currently used in AVs can  be  up  to  250  meters  [61].  In  this  research,  we  have

considered the range to be 200 meters. As the in-vehicle camera sensor is used to capture in real-time the following vehicle's movement,  there  is  no  delay  in  data  collection.  Also,  the computational  delay  is  negligible  as  the  CAV  will  detect  an aggressive  vehicle  which  is  200  meters  in  the upstream location,  leaving  CAV  with  sufficient  time  to  react.  Fig.  6 shows the rear camera window of a situation-aware CAV while tracking  the  following  vehicle.  Similar  to  the  base  scenario, here the following vehicle starts the journey after 8 seconds of the leader CAV. The author has used MIDACO solver to solve the optimization function in real-time [62].

The arrival time of the vehicles approaching from the opposite through needs to be estimated. Here, one assumption is that a video camera will be installed at the intersection, and it will be used to estimate arrival times of the opposite through vehicles. To  identify  the  start  and  end  of  the  conflict  points  in  the opposing through traffic stream, σ and   values are considered t to be 0.6 meter (2 ft.) and 1.2 meter (4 ft.) [63]. These small distance thresholds were considered as they provide more gaps for a CAV's left-turning maneuver that would avoid rear-end

(a) Travel time variations of the leader AV/CAV

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-3b6121e6-2be2-4ec8-b962-cea3e21e7fd7.jpg)

crash likelihood with  a following  aggressive  driver. The roadside  units,  installed  at  the  intersection,  will  share  the camera captured data with the CAV using the V2I communication.  The  intersection  video  camera  will  use  V2I communication  only to share the information about the approaching  through  vehicle  stream  with  the  CAV.  In  a previous  study,  the  authors  implemented  a  real-world  TCPS application  for  pedestrian  movement  detection  using  a  video camera-enabled connected roadside unit [64]. The same experimental setup can be used to detect gaps between approaching  vehicles  on  the  opposing  through  lanes.  Similar data can be captured through V2V communication if all of the approaching vehicles at the intersection are connected vehicles. After reaching the intersection, a CAV utilizes data from the intersection camera/RSU about the location of the approaching vehicles from the opposite through direction.

## VI. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The following subsections discuss the findings for both leader CAV and the following vehicle.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-9920bbe5-9731-40b1-b383-ed9bd40b632d.jpg)

(b) Travel time saving of the CAV

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-eea281f7-0c4e-4c32-be89-5abcd8b2361c.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-092b547b-6c01-4346-a400-83355b257094.jpg)

For following vehicle

(c) Travel time variations of the vehicle following an AV\CAV          (d) Travel time saving of the vehicle following an AV\CAV

Fig. 8. Travel time Findings

Fig. 9. Following vehicle progression

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-170d208e-baba-41b3-8b62-ea2269d83aba.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-e26b0089-c248-49e7-8322-d3e7d9c72ddf.jpg)

## A. Abrupt Braking of Aggressive Following Vehicle

In this study, the abrupt braking of the aggressive driver is characterized  by  a sudden  reduction  of  speed.  We  have quantified the number of abrupt braking event reduction by the situation-aware CAVs. As shown in Fig. 7, the situation-aware CAV  controller  reduces  27%  of  the  abrupt  braking  of  the following  vehicle  for  the  600  and  1000  vphpln  opposing through traffic, compared to both base scenarios with an  AV without situation-awareness (i.e., with and without travel time optimization).  For  800  vphpln  opposite  traffic,  the  abrupt braking reduction decreases to 20%.

## B. Travel Time for CAV and Following Vehicle

We  have  estimated  the  travel  time  for  the  subject  vehicle from the start point of the  corridor from which the vehicle starts to  move  to  the  intersection  to  the  start  point  of  the  target corridor after taking the left turn. The mean values shown in box plots in Fig. 8 (a) signifies that the Base #2 AV operation with travel time minimization objective has a lower travel time compared to the scenario without any optimization (i.e., Base #1). However, compared to both Base #1 and #2 AV operations, the situation-aware CAV controller module decreases the travel time for the vehicle itself for each scenario. Fig. 8 (b) shows the percent reduction of average travel time by the situation-aware CAV compared to both base AV scenarios (with and without travel time  minimization).  Compared  to  the  base  #2  AV operation (with travel time minimization), the situation-aware CAV  module  offers  average  travel  time  reductions  of  51%, 47%, and 57%, for the 600, 800, and 1000 vphpln scenarios, respectively.

Similar results are derived by observing the following vehicle, as shown in Fig. 8 (c) and Fig. 8 (d). Examining the mean values of box plots in Fig. 8 (c), Base #2 AV operation with travel time minimization objective reduces the travel time of the following vehicle compared to the scenario without any optimization (i.e., Base #1). However, the following aggressive vehicle's travel time is further reduced by the situation-aware CAV controller module for each scenario with different opposite through traffic volumes.  In  the  situation-aware  CAV  scenario,  the  average travel time savings for the following vehicle, compared to the base #2 AV operation (with travel time minimization), are 58%, 52%,  and  62%  for  the  600,  800,  and  1000  vphpln  opposite through vehicle stream, respectively.

## C. Aggressive Following Vehicle Progression

One of the purposes of the situation-aware CAV controller

module is to clear the path for the following aggressive vehicle driver so that the following vehicle does not need to wait for a long time. The progression profile (i.e., vehicle location with respect to time) of the aggressive vehicle, following a CAV, provides  a  clear  picture  of  the  impact  of  the  situation-aware CAV controller module. Fig. 9 shows the progression of the vehicle following an AV/CAV  in base #1 AV, base #2 AV, and situation-aware  CAV  scenario  with  time.  The  study  corridor length  is  337m,  and  the  horizontal  line  after  300m  in  Fig.  9 means that the vehicle following an AV/CAV is stopped  close to the intersection because of the front AV/CAV. The length of the horizontal lines is proportional to the waiting time of the vehicle following an AV/CAV. As shown with the blue dotted lines in Fig. 9, the waiting time of the following vehicle is the lowest while the aggressive human driver is operating behind a situation-aware  CAVs  (regardless  of  the  opposing  through traffic volume) compared to the vehicle following an AV (base #1 and #2 AV). It is evident from the progressions that the V2I communication enabled situation-aware CAV helps the aggressive  vehicle  following  a  CAV  to  quickly  progress through the intersection compared to the base scenario with AV without V2I communication and situational awareness.

## VII. CONCLUSIONS

The presence of aggressive human drivers in a mixed traffic stream makes the operation of CAVs challenging, as aggressive drivers  tend  to  follow  the  leader  vehicle  very  closely.  Any sudden movement change by a leader CAV has the potential to cause  abrupt  behavior  by  the  following  vehicle,  which  may result in road rage and/or a rear-end crash. Also, human drivers often could take unethical advantages of the defensive driving behavior  of  AVs.  If  CAVs  can  act  based  on  surrounding situations, they can mimic human behavior more closely, which will reduce the confusion among the surrounding human drivers about any future actions of CAVs. In this study, the situationaware  CAV  uses  its  own  rear  camera  sensor  to  identify  the following vehicle's intent. Once the CAV determines that the following vehicle is aggressive, it determines the appropriate gap in the opposite through traffic stream, optimizes the speed profile,  and  increases  its  speed  to  reach  the  initial  point  of deceleration to initiate the left-turn. If a safe gap is not available when the CAV reaches the approach intersection stop line, the CAV evaluates  data  from  the  roadside  units  about  available gaps on the opposing through lanes and prepares to make a leftturn  immediately  when  the  required  gap  is  available.  The overall decision-making module helps to clear the intersection as soon as possible to reduce the travel time of the following aggressive vehicle.

Based  on  the  analysis  conducted  in  this  research,  we  have found that the situation-aware CAV improves the operational condition compared to the base scenario with only AV (without any V2I communication) for different flow rates in the opposite through  vehicle  stream.  The  situation-aware  CAV  controller module reduces the number of abrupt braking by  27%, 20%, and 27% for opposing through traffic stream with 600, 800, and 1000  vphpln,  respectively,  compared  to  the  base  scenario without  situational  awareness  of  AVs.  While  assessing  the travel time reduction, the situation-aware CAV  scenario reduces travel time for a CAV, compared to the base scenario with AV (operating with travel time optimization), as much as 51%,  47%,  and  57%  for  the  600,  800,  and  1000  vphpln opposing through vehicles, respectively. Similar improvements are found for the following vehicles with 58%, 52%, and 62% travel time savings for the 600, 800, and 1000 vphpln opposing through vehicles, respectively.

The desired benefit may not be achieved if CAVs cannot be proactive to reduce potential conflicts due to responding to an aggressive following non-CAV. With an increasing penetration level of CAVs, a cooperative movement can be enabled with CAVs in the opposing traffic stream to help a left-turning CAV find a gap if a following aggressive vehicle is present. Also, the human driver's aggressiveness level can vary from person to person. Developing the situation-aware CAV module for a wide range of driver aggressiveness can help CAV take actions based on  the  characteristics  of  the  specific following  driver.  A situation-aware CAV operation will be influenced by external factors (e.g., congested traffic condition, extreme weather, etc.) where  front  vehicles  may  need  to  do  sudden  lane  change. Having  the  capability  of  dynamic  speed  profile  optimization can help the CAV operation in such scenarios, which can be studied in the future. Future studies should also be conducted to evaluate the impacts of wireless communication options on the situation-aware CAV controller operation. Finally, a real-world evaluation  of the situation-aware  CAV  controller  module presented  in  this  paper  should  be  conducted  to  validate  the operational benefits in real-life.

## VIII. REFERENCES

- [1] D. T. Kanapram et al. , 'Collective Awareness for Abnormality Detection in Connected Autonomous Vehicles,' IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 3774-3789, May 2020.
- [2] Y. Chen, C. Lu, and W. Chu, 'A Cooperative Driving Strategy Based on Velocity Prediction for Connected Vehicles with Robust Path-Following Control,' IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 3822-3832, May 2020.
- [3] I. Ahmed, A. Karr, N. M. Rouphail, G. Chun, and S. Tanvir, 'Characterizing Lane Changes via Digitized Infrastructure and Low-Cost GPS,' Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board , p. 036119811984127, Apr. 2019.
- [4] D. Lupton, 'Road rage: drivers' understandings and experiences,' J. Sociol. , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 275-290, Sep. 2002.
- [5] D. Shinar, 'Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and the situation,' Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 137-160, Dec. 1998.
- [6] R. L. Dukes, S. L. Clayton, L. T. Jenkins, T. L. Miller, and S. E. Rodgers, 'Effects of aggressive driving and driver characteristics on road rage,' Soc. Sci. J. , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 323-331, Jun. 2001.
- [7] A. M. Boggs, B. Wali, and A. J. Khattak, 'Exploratory analysis of automated vehicle crashes in California: A

text analytics &amp; hierarchical Bayesian heterogeneitybased approach,' Accid. Anal. Prev. , vol. 135, p. 105354, 2020.

- [8] R. Arvin, M. Kamrani, A. J. Khattak, and J. RiosTorres, 'Safety Impacts of Automated Vehicles in Mixed Traffic,' in Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting , 2018.
- [9] F. M. Favarò, N. Nader, S. O. Eurich, M. Tripp, and N. Varadaraju, 'Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in California,' PLoS One , vol. 12, no. 9, p. e0184952, Sep. 2017.
- [10] W. Biever, L. Angell, and S. Seaman, 'Automated Driving System Collisions: Early Lessons,' Hum. Factors , vol. 62, no. 2, 2020.
- [11] S. Li, D. Seth, and M. L. Cummings, 'Traffic Efficiency and Safety Impacts of Autonomous Vehicle Aggressiveness,' 2019. [Online]. Available: https://hal.pratt.duke.edu/sites/hal.pratt.duke.edu/files/ u36/AV Aggressiveness TRB Paper final.pdf. [Accessed: 26-Aug-2020].
- [12] C. Urmson et al. , 'Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge,' J. F. Robot. , vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 425-466, 2008.
- [13] A. Wolfermann, W. K. M. Alhajyaseen, and H. Nakamura, 'Modeling Speed Profiles of Turning Vehicles at Signalized Intersections,' in 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation , 2011.
- [14] C. Dias, M. Iryo-Asano, and T. Oguchi, 'Predicting Optimal Trajectory of Left-Turning Vehicle at Signalized Intersection,' in Transportation Research Procedia , 2017.
- [15] W. K. M. Alhajyaseen, M. Asano, and H. Nakamura, 'Estimation of left-turning vehicle maneuvers for the assessment of pedestrian safety at intersections,' IATSS Res. , 2012.
- [16] Y. Gu, Y. Hashimoto, L. T. Hsu, M. Iryo-Asano, and S. Kamijo, 'Human-like motion planning model for driving in signalized intersections,' IATSS Res. , 2017.
- [17] S. Lee, E. Jeong, M. Oh, and C. Oh, 'Driving aggressiveness management policy to enhance the performance of mixed traffic conditions in automated driving environments,' Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. , 2019.
- [18] Cox Automotive, 'Kelley Blue Book | MediaRoom Special Reports,' Kelley Blue Book , 2016. [Online]. Available: https://mediaroom.kbb.com/futureautonomous-vehicle-driver-study. [Accessed: 21-Jul2019].
- [19] S. M. Khan, M. Chowdhury, E. A. Morris, and L. Deka, 'Synergizing Roadway Infrastructure Investment with Digital Infrastructure for Infrastructure-Based Connected Vehicle Applications: Review of Current Status and and Future Directions,' ASCE J. Infrastruct. Syst. , 2019.
- [20] L. Deka, S. M. Khan, M. Chowdhury, and N. Ayres, 'Transportation Cyber-Physical System and its importance for future mobility,' in Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems , 2018.
- [21] A. A. Jahromi and D. Kundur, 'Fundamentals of

|      | Cyber-Physical Systems,' in Cyber-Physical Systems in the Built Environment , Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 1-13.                                                                                                                                                                              |
|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [22] | S. E. Shladover, 'Connected and automated vehicle systems: Introduction and overview,' J. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 190-200, May 2018.                                                                                                                                                      |
| [23] | B. Omoniwa, R. Hussain, M. A. Javed, S. H. Bouk, and S. A. Malik, 'Fog/edge computing-based IoT (FECIoT): Architecture, applications, and research issues,' IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4118-4149, Jun. 2019.                                                                                |
| [24] | J. Lin, W. Yu, N. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Zhang, and W. Zhao, 'A Survey on Internet of Things: Architecture, Enabling Technologies, Security and Privacy, and Applications,' IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1125-1142, Oct. 2017.                                                                    |
| [25] | NHTSA, 'Speeding | NHTSA,' 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky- driving/speeding. [Accessed: 19-Jul-2019].                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| [26] | R. Mohebbi, R. Gray, and H. Z. Tan, 'Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone,' Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. , vol. 51, no. 1,                                                                                                      |
| [27] | pp. 102-110, Feb. 2009. J. D. Lee, D. V. McGehee, T. L. Brown, and M. L. Reyes, 'Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear- End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator,' Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 314-334, Jun. 2002. |
| [28] | Y. Ni and K. Li, 'Estimating Rear-End Accident Probabilities at Signalized Intersections: A Comparison Study of Intersections With and Without Green Signal Countdown Devices,' Traffic Inj. Prev. , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 583-590, Aug. 2014.                                                                  |
| [29] | F. Ye, M. Adams, and S. Roy, 'V2V Wireless Communication Protocol for Rear-End Collision Avoidance on Highways,' in ICC Workshops - 2008 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops , 2008, pp. 375-379.                                                                                       |
| [30] | W. Liu, S.-W. Kim, S. Pendleton, and M. H. Ang, 'Situation-aware decision making for autonomous driving on urban road using online POMDP,' in 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , 2015, pp. 1126-1133.                                                                                            |
| [31] | W. Song, G. Xiong, and H. Chen, 'Intention-Aware Autonomous Driving Decision-Making in an Uncontrolled Intersection,' Math. Probl. Eng. , vol. 2016, pp. 1-15, Apr. 2016.                                                                                                                                     |
| [32] | O. McAree, J. M. Aitken, and S. M. Veres, 'Towards artificial situation awareness by autonomous vehicles,' IFAC-PapersOnLine , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 7038-7043, Jul. 2017.                                                                                                                                      |
| [33] | T. Kampik, J. C. Nieves, and H. Lindgren, 'Empathic Autonomous Agents,' arXiv Prepr. , 2019.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [34] | J. Wei, J. M. Dolan, and B. Litkouhi, 'Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management,' in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings , 2013.                                                                                                                                  |
| [35] | R. Vaiana et al. , 'Driving behavior and traffic safety:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

An acceleration-based safety evaluation procedure for smartphones,' Mod. Appl. Sci. , 2014.

- [36] O. Kumtepe, G. B. Akar, and E. Yuncu, 'Driver aggressiveness detection via multisensory data fusion,' EURASIP J. Image Video Process. , vol. 2016, no. 1, p. 5, Dec. 2016.
- [37] E. Cheung, A. Bera, E. Kubin, K. Gray, and D. Manocha, 'Identifying Driver Behaviors using Trajectory Features for Vehicle Navigation,' in Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting , 2006.
- [38] A. B. Rodriguez Gonzalez, M. R. Wilby, J. J. Vinagre Diaz, and C. Sanchez Avila, 'Modeling and detecting aggressiveness from driving signals,' IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , 2014.
- [39] Y. Zhang, P. Ni, M. Li, H. Liu, and B. Yin, 'A New Car-Following Model considering Driving Characteristics and Preceding Vehicle's Acceleration,' J. Adv. Transp. , 2017.
- [40] C. Hubmann, M. Becker, D. Althoff, D. Lenz, and C. Stiller, 'Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles,' in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings , 2017.
- [41] S. Yoon and D. Kum, 'The multilayer perceptron approach to lateral motion prediction of surrounding vehicles for autonomous vehicles,' in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings , 2016.
- [42] N. Deo and M. M. Trivedi, 'Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction,' in IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops , 2018.
- [43] J. M. Scanlon, R. Sherony, and H. C. Gabler, 'Earliest Sensor Detection Opportunity for Left Turn Across Path Opposite Direction Crashes,' IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. , 2017.
- [44] S. Kuutti, S. Fallah, K. Katsaros, M. Dianati, F. Mccullough, and A. Mouzakitis, 'A Survey of the State-of-the-Art Localization Techniques and Their Potentials for Autonomous Vehicle Applications,' IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 5, no. 2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 829846, 01-Apr-2018.
- [45] C. Marina Martinez, M. Heucke, F. Y. Wang, B. Gao, and D. Cao, 'Driving Style Recognition for Intelligent Vehicle Control and Advanced Driver Assistance: A Survey,' IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems . 2018.
- [46] B. Efron, 'Bayes' theorem in the 21st century,' Science . 2013.
- [47] P. G. Michael, F. C. Leeming, and W. O. Dwyer, 'Headway on urban streets: Observational data and an intervention to decrease tailgating,' Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. , 2000.
- [48] I. M. Berry, 'The effects of driving style and vehicle performance on the real-world fuel consumption of US light-duty vehicles,' Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.
- [49] K. A. Hafeez, L. Zhao, B. Ma, and J. W. Mark, 'Performance analysis and enhancement of the DSRC

|      | for VANET's safety applications,' IEEE Trans. Veh.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [50] | Technol. , vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3069-3083, 2013. Z. Xu, X. Li, X. Zhao, M. H. Zhang, and Z. Wang, 'DSRC versus 4G-LTE for connected vehicle applications: A study on field experiments of vehicular communication performance,' J. Adv. Transp. , vol. 2017, 2017.                    |
| [51] | X. Yin, X. Ma, K. S. Trivedi, and A. Vinel, 'Performance and reliability evaluation of BSM broadcasting in DSRC with multi-channel schemes,' IEEE Trans. Comput. , vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 3101-3113, 2014.                                                                             |
| [52] | S. Biddlestone, K. Redmill, R. Miucic, and Ü. Ozguner, 'An integrated 802.11p WAVE DSRC and vehicle traffic simulator with experimentally validated urban (LOS and NLOS) propagation models,' IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1792- 1802, 2012.              |
| [53] | Z. Li, H. Shariatmadari, B. Singh, and M. A. Uusitalo, '5G URLLC: Design challenges and system concepts,' in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems , 2018, vol. 2018-August.                                                                  |
| [54] | K. C. Dey, A. Rayamajhi, M. Chowdhury, P. Bhavsar, and J. Martin, 'Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle- to-infrastructure (V2I) communication in a heterogeneous wireless network - Performance evaluation,' Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. , vol. 68, pp. 168-184, Jul. 2016. |
| [55] | L. T. Trinh, K. Sano, and K. Hatoyama, 'Modelling and simulating head-on conflict-solving behaviour of motorcycles under heterogeneous traffic condition in developing countries,' 2020.                                                                                             |
| [56] | P. Wang, J. Wang, C.-Y. Chan, and S. Fang, 'Trajectory Prediction for Turning Vehicles at Intersections by Fusing Vehicle Dynamics and Driver's Future Input Estimation,' Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board , vol. 2602, no. 1, pp. 68-77, Jan. 2016.                          |
| [57] | M. Treiber and A. Kesting, 'Car-Following Models Based on Driving Strategies,' in Traffic Flow Dynamics , 2013.                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [58] | D. R. Ragland, S. Arroyo, S. E. Shladover, J. A. Misener, and C.-Y. Chan, 'Gap acceptance for vehicles turning left across on-coming traffic: Implications for,' in Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting , 2006.                                                        |
| [59] | S. A. Fayazi and A. Vahidi, 'Mixed-integer linear programming for optimal scheduling of autonomous vehicle intersection crossing,' IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. , 2018.                                                                                                                  |
| [60] | O. Michel, 'Cyberbotics Ltd. Webots TM : Professional Mobile Robot Simulation,' Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 5, Mar. 2004.                                                                                                                                          |
| [61] | M. Taraba, J. Adamec, M. Danko, and S. P. Drgona, 'Utilization of modern sensors in autonomous vehicles,' in 2018 ELEKTRO , 2018, pp. 1-5.                                                                                                                                           |
| [62] | M. Schlueter, S. O. Erb, M. Gerdts, S. Kemble, and J. J. Rückmann, 'MIDACO on MINLP space applications,' Adv. Sp. Res. , 2013.                                                                                                                                                       |

[63] S. M. Khan, 'Connected and Automated Vehicles in Urban Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems,' Clemson University, 2019.

[64] M. Rahman, M. Islam, J. Calhoun, and M.

Chowdhury, 'Real-Time Pedestrian Detection Approach with an Efficient Data Communication Bandwidth Strategy,' Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board , vol. 2673, no. 6, pp. 129-139, Jun. 2019.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-2ae0fd9c-9515-48d7-937f-eec714486371.jpg)

Sakib  Mahmud  Khan is the Assistant Director of Center for Connected Multimodal Mobility at Clemson Univresity. Before that, he was a post-doctoral research scholar  working  at  California  Partners  for Advanced Transportation Technology

(PATH),  University  of  California  Berkeley.  Before  joining PATH,  he  worked  as  a  research  specialist  at  the  Center  of Connected  Multimodal  Mobility  at  Clemson  University.  He received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. from Clemson University in 2019 and 2015, respectively.

Mashrur 'Ronnie' Chowdhury (SM' 14) is  the  Eugene  Douglas Mays Professor of Transportation at Clemson University. He is  the  director  of  the  USDOT  Center  for Connected  Multimodal  Mobility  (C2M2) ((http://cecas.clenson.edu/c2m2). He is the

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00981v2-figure-d4532ca2-aeae-4549-bbf7-dd15aa164c00.jpg)

co-director of the Complex Systems, Analytics and Visualization  Institute  (CSAVI)  (http://clemson-csavi.org)  at Clemson University. He is the director of the Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems Laboratory at Clemson University. He previously  served  as  an  elected  member  of  the  IEEE  ITS Society Board of Governors and is currently a senior member of the IEEE. He is a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and an alumnus of the National Academy of Engineering  (NAE)  Frontiers  of  Engineering  program.  Dr. Chowdhury is a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB)  Committee  on  Artificial  Intelligence  and  Advanced Computing Applications, and the TRB Committee on Intelligent Transportation Systems. He is the founding advisor of the 'IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Society (ITSS) Student  Chapter'  at  Clemson  University.  He  is  a  registered professional engineer in Ohio.
Sakib Mahmud Khan Mashrur Chowdhury
Situation-Aware Left-Turning Connected and Automated Vehicle Operation at Signalized Intersections
One challenging aspect of the Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) operation
in mixed traffic is the development of a situation-awareness module for CAVs.
While operating on public roads, CAVs need to assess their surroundings,
especially the intentions of non-CAVs. Generally, CAVs demonstrate a defensive
driving behavior, and CAVs expect other non-autonomous entities on the road
will follow the traffic rules or common driving behavior. However, the presence
of aggressive human drivers in the surrounding environment, who may not follow
traffic rules and behave abruptly, can lead to serious safety consequences. In
this paper, we have addressed the CAV and non-CAV interaction by evaluating a
situation-awareness module for left-turning CAV operations in an urban area.
Existing literature does not consider the intent of the following vehicle for a
CAVs left-turning movement, and existing CAV controllers do not assess the
following non-CAVs intents. Based on our simulation study, the situation-aware
CAV controller module reduces up to 27% of the abrupt braking of the following
non-CAVs for scenarios with different opposing through movement compared to the
base scenario with the autonomous vehicle, without considering the following
vehicles intent. The analysis shows that the average travel time reductions for
the opposite through traffic volumes of 600, 800, and 1000 vehicle/hour/lane
are 58%, 52%, and 62%, respectively, for the aggressive human driver following
the CAV if the following vehicles intent is considered by a CAV in making a
left turn at an intersection.