## 4 Experiments
### Adaptability  
#### 4.4.1 Different Participants Driving the General Road Environment  
Based on the learning capability, subsequent adaptive experiments were conducted to explore whether the ANM system could further train and apply the system of one individual to others. Our approach is to test whether different subjects perform similarly in similar driving environments. The approach adopted is to use a system trained on one user's driving data to be tested on another user's driving data. This may be an assessment of the effectiveness of applying driving skills or knowledge learned through one participant to another participant in a particular driving scenario. It is a type of stress test. This study interprets it as adaptive capacity. The trained system was tested using nine driving segments from another participant with similar driving patterns. For each test, the system's loss values were initially recorded when encountering different drivers, followed by observing the outcomes after running for 500 iterations. Results from Tables 9-14 indicated that some driving segments achieved improvement rates of over 75% after just 500 training iterations, while others showed around 40% improvement. Even with relatively brief training periods, achieving 40% improvement demonstrates the adaptability of the ANM system. These data suggest that there is still room for learning. Moreover, using training data from the same individual may better suit drivers with similar habits; for example, Participant One and Participant Three share similar driving habits, as do Participant Two and Participant Three. In the future, systems trained on Participants One and Two could be applied to Participant Three. Figure 16: Analysis of loss data of 20 clusters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cluster** & **Run** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Cycle 1** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Termination** \\ \end{tabular} & **Improvement Rate** \\ \hline
1 & 6 & 4517.7 & 1721.9 & 61.9\% \\ \hline
2 & 12 & 3799.8 & 1039.6 & 72.6\% \\ \hline
3 & 18 & 3854.7 & 2119.6 & 45.0\% \\ \hline
4 & 24 & 4077.3 & 1144.5 & 71.9\% \\ \hline
5 & 30 & 4263.1 & 1559.3 & 63.4\% \\ \hline
6 & 36 & 3620.8 & 1175.2 & 67.5\% \\ \hline
7 & 42 & 3855.0 & 1166 & 69.8\% \\ \hline
8 & 48 & 4339.0 & 1372.3 & 68.4\% \\ \hline
9 & 54 & 3955.4 & 1002.8 & 74.6\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Participant B’s data were tested with Participant A’s learned system in a general road environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cluster** & **Run** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Cycle 1** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Termination** \\ \end{tabular} & **Improvement Rate** \\ \hline
1 & 6 & 1989.1 & 980.2 & 50.7\% \\ \hline
2 & 12 & 1147.3 & 812.5 & 29.2\% \\ \hline
3 & 18 & 2745.4 & 800.7 & 70.8\% \\ \hline
4 & 24 & 1986.3 & 892.4 & 55.1\% \\ \hline
5 & 30 & 1590.3 & 949.5 & 40.3\% \\ \hline
6 & 36 & 2599.2 & 719.5 & 72.3\% \\ \hline
7 & 42 & 1507.3 & 784.7 & 47.9\% \\ \hline
8 & 48 & 1807.8 & 965.6 & 46.6\% \\ \hline
9 & 54 & 1708.7 & 1291.9 & 24.4\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Participant A’s data were tested with Participant C’s learned system in a general road environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cluster** & **Run** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Cycle 1** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loss at** \\ **Termination** \\ \end{tabular} & **Improvement Rate** \\ \hline
1 & 6 & 2723.2 & 1443.2 & 47.0\% \\ \hline
2 & 12 & 1838.0 & 1095.5 & 40.4\% \\ \hline
3 & 18 & 2829.4 & 1573.5 & 44.4\% \\ \hline
4 & 24 & 2052.0 & 1140.7 & 44.4\% \\ \hline
5 & 30 & 2517.2 & 1438.6 & 42.8\% \\ \hline
6 & 36 & 2080.3 & 906 & 56.4\% \\ \hline
7 & 42 & 2131.8 & 1069.9 & 49.8\% \\ \hline
8 & 48 & 1755.1 & 1149.5 & 34.5\% \\ \hline
9 & 54 & 1222.7 & 1219.9 & 0.2\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}