An Extended Car-Following Model at Signalised Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extended car-following model is proposed on the basis of experimental analysis to improve the performance of the traditional car-following model and simulate a microscopic car-following behaviour at signalised intersections. The new car-following model considers vehicle gather and dissipation. Firstly, the parameters of optimal velocity, generalised force and full velocity difference models are calibrated by measured data, and the problems and causes of the three models are analysed with a realistic trajectory simulation as an evaluation criterion. Secondly, an extended car-following model based on the full optimal velocity model is proposed by considering the vehicle gather and dissipation. The parameters of the new car-following model are calibrated by the measured data, and the model is compared with comparative models on the basis of isolated point data and the entire car-following process. Simulation results show that the optimal velocity, generalised force, and full velocity difference models cannot effectively simulate a microscopic car-following behaviour at signalised intersections, whereas the new car-following model can avoid a collision and has a high fit degree for simulating the measured data of the car-following behaviour at signalised intersections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".