# Game Theory-Based Interactive Control for Human-Machine Cooperative Driving
## 5 Experimental Results and Analysis
### Scenario 2 Test  
Scenario 2 consists of cases e, f, g, and h and considers HSCV passive avoidance of sudden lane changes by adjacent vehicles. In this scenario, the HSCV, NV1, and NV2 are in lane 2, lane 1, and lane 3, respectively. Faced with the competitive lane change behavior of NV1 to lane 2, the driver in the HSCV may choose to change lanes to avoid collision or slow down to give way. In cases e and f, the impact of the different driving styles of NV2 on the HSCV of passive lane change to road 3 to avoid NV1 was tested. Cases g and h tested the HSCV that insisted on lane keeping and safely avoided the NV1 that changed lanes from different locations. In all cases of Scenario 2, the initial speed of the HSCV and NV2 is set to \(18\) m/s. The initial speed of NV1 is \(16\) m/s in cases e and f, while it is \(18\) m/s in cases f and g. The initial position of the HSCV is \((15,0)\) in all cases of Scenario 2. The initial position of NV1 is \((20,-4)\) in cases e, f, and g and \((5,-4)\) in case h. The initial position of NV2 is \((0,4)\) in cases e and f, while it is \((20,4)\) in cases g and h.  
Figures 11-13 show the vehicle trajectory, vehicle speed, and vehicle position in Scenario 2. In case e, it can be found that when the aggressiveness level of NV2 in lane 3 is low, the driver in the HSCV can smoothly change lanes to avoid NV1 which suddenly changes lanes to lane 2. Case f supplements case e and tests the situation where NV2 competes with the HSCV for lane 3. As the threat of collision between the HSCV and NV2 increases, the automation control system in the HSCV will intervene in vehicle speed and wheel angle to avoid collision with NV2 until the driver gives up the lane change and desired vehicle speed and returns to the original road at a low speed. Case g shows that the human driver and the HSCV avoid NV1's lane change by actively slowing down, slightly steering, and gradually returning to the driver's desired speed after completing the safe avoidance. Case h shows the dangerous situation of NV1 suddenly accelerating and changing lanes from the blind spot behind the HSCV, which is invisible to human drivers. The automation control system in the HSCV performs emergency collision avoidance on  
Figure 10: Driving control authority allocation for HSCV in scenario 1: (**a**) driving authority allocation in case a; (**b**) driving authority allocation in case b; (**c**) driving authority allocation in case c; (**d**) driving authority allocation in case d.  
Figure 9: Front wheel angle of HSCV in scenario 1: (**a**) wheel angle in case a; (**b**) wheel angle in case b; (**c**) wheel angle in case c; (**d**) wheel angle in case d.  
human driver and can change lanes smoothly to avoid NV1, which suddenly changes lanes. However, in case f, NV2 with a high aggressiveness level will bring a higher collision threat. The automated control system in the HSCV will reduce the driver's control authority until the driver gives up the lane change. Then, the value \(\lambda\) of the driver's control authority will gradually increase to close to 1. In cases g and h, as the collision threat caused by NV1's sudden lane change increases, HSCV will allocate more driving authority to the automation control system to intervene in driving. The difference between cases g and h is that in case g, the NV1 that changes lanes in front of the HSCV reserves more space for the HSCV to decelerate and avoid collisions without requiring automation system intervention in the steering angle. In contrast to case g, HSCV in case h needs more steering control to avoid collision when facing NV1 changing lanes behind it.