Effect of Adaptive Cruise Control on Mixed Traffic Flow: A Comparison of Constant Time Gap Policy with Variable Time Gap Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the emerging application of low-level driving automation technology, heterogeneous traffic flow mixed with human-driven vehicles and low-level autonomous vehicles is dawning. In this context, it is imperative to investigate its effect on mixed traffic flow. As a key component for adaptive cruise control (ACC) which is a practical low-level application of driving automation, the time gap policy determines the dynamic of ACC-equipped vehicles and plays a crucial role in traffic flow stability and efficiency. There are two main time gap policies used for ACC at present, namely, constant time gap (CTG) policy and variable time gap (VTG) policy. In this study, we carried out a detailed comparison between these time gap policies to investigate their potential effect on mixed traffic flow, where the analytical- and simulation-based approaches are both considered. Analytical results show that VTG policy is superior to CTG policy in stabilizing the mixed traffic flow. In addition, numerical simulations are also conducted and simulation results further support the analytical results. As for throughput, there is no difference between CTG policy and VTG policy in analytical progress when the same time gap is set at the equilibrium. However, simulation results based on an on-ramp scenario show that the throughput of mixed traffic flow with VTG policy is slightly higher than that of CTG policy. Meanwhile, the scatter of mixed traffic flow with VTG policy in the flow-density diagram gradually clusters in the middle range of density (i.e., 20–40 veh/km) with the increase of the penetration rates of ACC vehicles, where the traffic flow operates more efficiently. These results indicate that VTG policy is better than CTG policy when designing controllers for ACC in the context of traffic flow operation and control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".