Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To address smoothness and safety issues in driving authority switching for human–machine co-driving intelligent vehicles, a hierarchical control strategy is proposed. The upper-layer controller utilizes a two-point preview model for human driving and a radial basis function neural network-based nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode controller with a heuristic gain adaptive tuning mechanism (RBFNN-HGATM-NFTSMC) for autonomous tracking. The lower-layer authority switching controller employs a driving risk-based finite state machine, integrating a risk-switching strategy and a cost function-based authority return mechanism. CarSim/Simulink co-simulations show that, compared to model predictive control, the upper-layer controller reduces maximum lateral errors by 77.7% and 66.2% under medium- and high-speed conditions, respectively. Compared with standard RBFNN-NFTSMC, it reduces lateral and heading errors by 56.2% and 11.9% at high speeds. With the decision logic held fixed, the risk-mapped transition lowers the takeover jerk peak by 35.75% and the return-phase jerk by 91.4% relative to an instantaneous transfer, at the cost of a larger transient lateral error during the handover. Under high-speed sudden distraction, the maximum lateral tracking error is 1.17 m. Under extreme parameter mismatch conditions, lateral and heading errors are reduced by 88.5% and 87.1% compared to standard NFTSMC, indicating robustness of the proposed controller under the tested parameter mismatch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: