An Improved Car-Following Speed Model considering Speed of the Lead Vehicle, Vehicle Spacing, and Driver’s Sensitivity to Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces an improved car-following speed (CFS) model that simultaneously considers speed of the lead vehicle, vehicle spacing, and driver’s sensitivity to them. Specifically, the proposed model extends the Helbing-Tilch model and Yang et al. model developed based on the principle of grey relational analysis where vehicle spacing is considered as the primary factor contributing to car-following speed choices. A computational experiment is conducted for model calibration using vehicle spacing, speed, and acceleration data derived from vehicle trajectory data of the Next Generation Simulation (NGSIM) project sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It shows that speed of the lead vehicle and vehicle spacing significantly affect speed of the lag vehicle. Further, model validation is carried out using an independent NGSIM dataset by comparing vehicle speed predictions made by the calibrated CFS model with Helbing-Tilch model and Yang et al. model as benchmarks. Compared with speed prediction results of the benchmark models, mean relative errors, root mean square errors, and equal coefficient of speed predictions of the CFS model have reduced by 72.41% and 61.85%, 70.14% and 57.99%, and 33.15% and 14.48%, respectively. The findings of model validation reveal that the CFS model could improve the accuracy of speed predictions in the car-following process.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".