# Game Theory-Based Interactive Control for Human-Machine Cooperative Driving
## 5 Experimental Results and Analysis
### Scenario 1 Test  
In Scenario 1, a common HSCV single lane change case was tested, and it was assumed that the lanes of the HSCV, NV1, and NV2 were represented as lane 1, lane 2, and lane 3, respectively. In this designed scenario, the HSCV driver in lane 1 is affected by the low speed of LV1 (assuming it keeps moving forward at a speed of 15 m/s), which leads to the lane-changing behavior of the human driver in the HSCV. Subsequently, in cases a and b, NV2 is set to lane keeping in lane 3, and only the effect of the different responses of NV1 on the HSCV is studied. NV1 in case a has a moderate level of aggressiveness, while NV1 is set with a high level of aggressiveness in case b. Case c and case d are supplements to the first two cases. NV1 is set to a low aggressiveness level, and the impact of the sudden lane changing behavior of NV2 with a high level of aggressiveness on the HSCV is studied. In all cases of Scenario 1, the initial velocities of the HSCV and LV1 are 18 m/s and 15 m/s, respectively, and the initial positions of the HSCV, NV1, NV2, and LV1 are \((15,-4),(0,0),(10,4),(50,-4)\), respectively. The initial velocities of NV1 and NV2 are 20 m/s and 15 m/s in cases a and b, and they are both 16 m/s in cases c and d.  
Figures 6-8 show the experimental results of vehicle trajectory, vehicle longitudinal speed, and longitudinal position, respectively, under the influence of different driving styles of NV1 and NV2. It can be found that NV1 will slow down and give way when it is in a low or moderate level of aggressiveness. The difference between low-level and moderate-level aggressive NV1 is that the former will maintain a greater distance between vehicles. In case a, the human driver in the HSCV can safely and smoothly change lanes. In case b, high-level aggressive NV1 will accelerate to occupy the road, and the automation control system in the HSCV will modify the driver's control commands to avoid NV1 safely. As the collision threat caused by the acceleration of NV1 increases, the automation control system gradually decelerates the HSCV and corrects the steering angle to maintain a safe distance from NV1. Until the HSCV safely avoids NV1, it gradually releases control authority to the driver, restores the driver's desired speed, and assists the driver in changing lanes. Cases c and d show the experimental results that the HSCV automatic control system can ensure the safe avoidance of NV2 under two driving conditions: driver giving up lane change and driver insisting on lane change. Figures 9 and 10 present the HSCV front steering angle and the curve of the driving control authority between the driver and the automation control system, respectively. In case a, since the safety threat posed by NV1's deceleration is very small, the automation control system in the HSCV only plays an auxiliary role, and the steering angle of the vehicle is mainly controlled by the driver. Cases b, c, and d show the situation where the SV and HSCV compete for the same lane. The HSCV automation control system will quickly deprive the driver of the control authority and perform safe avoidance until the driver senses the danger and returns to the original road, or it will assist the driver who insists on changing lanes. As shown in Figure 10, the automation control system