Multi-Agent Traffic Simulation for Development and Validation of Autonomic Car-to-Car Systems

  • Martin SchaeferEmail author
  • Jiří VokřínekEmail author
  • Daniele Pinotti
  • Fabio Tango
Part of the Autonomic Systems book series (ASYS)


In this chapter, we present the concept of an integrated multi-agent simulation platform to support the development and validation of autonomic cooperative car-to-car systems. The simulation allows to validate the car-to-car coordination strategies in various traffic scenarios in variable technology penetration levels (i.e. mixing different strategies) and user acceptance of such system as an external observer and/or as a part of the traffic (human in the loop with intelligent cooperative guidance system). The platform combines features of realistic driving simulation, traffic simulation with flexible level of detail and AI controlled vehicles. The principal idea of the platform is to allow the development and study of complex autonomic distributed car-to-car systems for vehicles coordination. The platform provides a development environment and a tool chain that is necessary for the validation of such complex systems. Autonomic car-to-car systems are based on coordination mechanisms between agents, where an agent represents a reasoning unit of a single vehicle. The road traffic is modelled as a multi-agent system of cooperative agents. The interaction between the agents brings autonomic properties into the emerged system (e.g. the traffic adapts to a blockage of a lane and vehicles merge into a second lane). The system also exhibits autonomic properties from a single user perspective. The driver approaches the system in a form of a driver assistance system—we can refer it as an autonomic driver assistance system. The driver is interacting only with the assistance system via a human-machine interface (HMI). The autonomic driver assistance system is hiding the complexity of multi-agent interactions from the user. The related agent of the single vehicle is responsible for an interaction with other agents in the system without any user’s intervention.


Autonomic car-to-car systems Development and validation Multi-agent simulation 



This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic within grant no. LD12044.


  1. 1.
    Alonso-mora, J., Breitenmoser, A., Beardsley, P., Siegwart, R.: Reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple car-like robots. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation ICRA, pp. 360–366 (2012).
  2. 2.
    Anderson, S.J., Karumanchi, S.B., Iagnemma, K.: Constraint-based planning and control for safe, semi-autonomous operation of vehicles. In: 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 383–388 (2012).
  3. 3.
    Berg, J.V.D., Guy, S., Lin, M., Manocha, D.: Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance. In: Robotics Research, pp. 1–16 (2010).
  4. 4.
    Cap, M., Novak, P., Selecky, M., Faigl, J., Vokrinek, J.: Asynchronous decentralized prioritized planning for coordination in multi-robot system. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Da Lio, M., Biral, F., Galvani, M., Saroldi, A.: Will intelligent vehicles evolve into human-peer robots? In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2012 IEEE, pp. 304–309. IEEE, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitch, G.M., Hankey, J.M.: Investigating improper lane changes: driver performance contributing to lane change near-crashes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 56, pp. 2231–2235. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flemisch, F.O., Adams, C.A., Conway, S.R., Goodrich, K.H., Palmer, M.T., Schutte, M.C.: The H-Metaphor as a Guideline for Vehicle Automation and Interaction Report No. NASA/TM-2003-212672. NASA Langley, Langley (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flemisch, F., Kelsch, J., Löper, C., Schieben, A., Schindler, J., Heesen, M.: Cooperative control and active interfaces for vehicle assistance and automation. Tech. rep., ATZ - Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 9 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodrich, M.A., Schultz, A.C.: Human-robot interaction: a survey. Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact. 1(3), 203–275 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heesen, M., Baumann, M., Kelsch, J., Nause, D., Friedrich, M.: Investigation of cooperative driving behaviour during lane change in a multi-driver simulation environment. In: Human Factors: A View from an Integrative Perspective. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter, Toulouse (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heide, A., Henning, K.: The “cognitive car”: a roadmap for research issues in the automotive sector. Annu. Rev. Control 30(2), 197–203 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inagaki, T.: Smart collaboration between humans and machines based on mutual understanding. Annu. Rev. Control 32(2), 253–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janovský, P.: Cooperative collision avoidance of road vehicles. Bachelor’s thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Komenda, A., Vokrinek, J., Cap, M., Pechoucek, M.: Developing multiagent algorithms for tactical missions using simulation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28(1), 42–49 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krajzewicz, D., Hertkorn, G., Rössel, C., Wagner, P.: Sumo (simulation of urban mobility). In: Proceedings of the 4th Middle East Symposium on Simulation and Modelling, pp. 183–187 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Future Things: Author of the Design of Everyday Things. BasicBooks, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000). doi:10.1109/3468.844354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roelofsen, M., Bie, J., Jin, L., Van Arem, B.: Assessment of safety levels and an innovative design for the lane change assistant. In: 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 83–88 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scerbo, M.W.: Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications (A 98-12010 01-54), pp. 37–63. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaefer, M.: Noncooperative collision avoidance of road vehicles. Bachelor’s thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tango, F., Saroldi, A., Da Lio, M.: Implementation of a co-driver for continuous support. In: 19th World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Vienna (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thrun, S.: Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Hum. Comput. Interact. 19(1–2), 9–24 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vokrinek, J., Janovsky, P., Faigl, J., Benda, P., Tango, F., Pinotti, D.: A cooperative driver model for traffic simulations. In: 11th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp. 756–761 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vokrinek, J., Schaefer, M., Pinotti, D.: Multi-agent traffic simulation for human-in-the-loop cooperative drive systems testing. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS ’14, pp. 1691–1692. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.RE:Lab s.r.l.Reggio EmiliaItaly
  3. 3.Centro Ricerche Fiat – E/E SystemsOrbasanoItaly

Personalised recommendations