Virtual Coupling (VC) aims to reduce inter-train following distances by relying on relative braking and vehicle-to-vehicle information exchange. Although VC train-following control is commonly addressed using model-based approaches such as Model Predictive Control, maintaining safe operation under communication delay, adhesion degradation, and positioning uncertainty remains challenging. This study proposes a safety-shielded Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) architecture for VC train following. A Soft Actor-Critic policy generates continuous nominal control commands for speed tracking, headway regulation, comfort, and actuation effort, while a braking-distance-based safety shield supervises the hard minimum-distance constraint through a one-step action-projection mechanism whenever the projection remains feasible. Therefore, the DRL policy is not treated as a standalone safety-certifying controller; safety is provided by the combined policy–shield architecture. The proposed method is evaluated under nominal operation, 10% adhesion loss, a communication-delay sweep (τ ∈ {0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0} s), and a combined-uncertainty stress test involving delay, adhesion loss, and position noise. All scenarios are assessed over 50 randomized seeds using worst-case and distributional statistics. Additional diagnostics, including safety-shield activation, raw-action feasibility, correction magnitude, and shield-off evaluation, are used to distinguish the role of the learned policy from that of the safety shield. The results show safe operation under nominal conditions, 10% adhesion loss, and communication delays up to 2.0 s in the considered setting. In contrast, delays of 5.0 s and 10.0 s and the combined-uncertainty stress test lead to safety violations and early termination, identifying the feasibility boundary of the considered VC formulation. Overall, the study provides a reproducible safety-shielded DRL baseline for VC train following and clarifies the delay regimes under which the proposed architecture remains applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alayoğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: