Car-Following Models: A Multidisciplinary Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Car-following (CF) algorithms are crucial components of traffic simulations and have been integrated into many production vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS). Insights from the model of car-following behavior help researchers to understand the causes of various macro phenomena that arise from interactions between pairs of vehicles. Car-following Models encompass multiple disciplines, including traffic engineering, physics, dynamic system control, cognitive science, machine learning, deep learning, and reinforcement learning. This paper presents an extensive survey that highlights the differences, complementarities, and overlaps among microscopic traffic flow and control models based on their underlying principles and design logic. It reviews representative algorithms, ranging from theory-based Kinematic Models, Psycho-Physical Models, and Adaptive Cruise Control Models to Learning-based algorithms like Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Imitation Learning (IL). To acknowledge the potential impact on CF models, Large GenAI Models are also included as Knowledge- Driven category. This manuscript discusses the strengths and limitations of these models and explores their applications in different contexts. This review synthesizes existing researches and available datasets across different domains to fill knowledge gaps and offer guidance for future research by identifying the latest trends in car following models and their applications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".