workshop “modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment” queen’s...
TRANSCRIPT
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Analysis of Car-following Models Using Real Traffic Microscopic Data
Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”Facoltà di Ingegneria
D.I.T. Dipartimento di Ingegneria dei Trasporti
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Context and definitions (here and now)
• Demand models (e.g. route choice model)– Aggregate
• (users/class of users – collective memory/choices can be taken into account)
– Disaggregate (microscopic?)• Individual history (actual previous choices) can be taken into account
• Supply models– Congestion model– Actual/Istantaneous path cost model– Flow propagation model
• Macroscopic (flow modelling)• Microscopic (vehicle modelling)
– Longitudinal models (e.g.: car-following)– Lateral models (e.g.: lane-changing)
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Why micro? (provided that we are not micro-supporters)
• Because sometimes details are relevant• In perspective (where micro-models will be really
consolidated):– Because they could be (potentially) more “behavioural” than other
approaches• Analytical, LWR, Cell transmission, … are (in part) inherently descriptive
– “Capacity”, critical density, flow-density/speed curves, … should be calibrated (at least in principle) for each link (for each class of link) of each network (of each modelling context)
• Micro-simulation is potentially behavioural– Car following (+ others) model parameters depends on driver behaviours– In principle driver behaviours are stable for extended geographic areas
» Given traffic context (urban, extra-urban) and not traffic conditions (traffic conditions are outputs of micro-simulation models)
– Calibrate drivers’ parameters and use them for all links of all network
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Calibration of car-following models
• Problems of car-following models in reproducing real traffic also depend on complexity of calibration.
• A plenty of microscopic laws and models attempting to capture longitudinal interactions among vehicles have been proposed.
• Not very much studies have been carried out for calibrating and validating these models
• Most probably because of difficulties in gathering accurate field data
• Models have been generally validated by comparing outputs aggregated at a macroscopic level
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Recent technology developments could help calibration of car-following models against disaggregate data?
• Brakstone and Mac Donalds (2003) – Validation of a fuzzy-logic based model– One test vehicles, with ground speed measurement system and front microwave
radar unit– 10 Hz time series databases on distance keeping behaviour between the test
vehicle and a preceding vehicle– Data gathered along UK motorway
• Brockfeld et alii (2004) and Ranjitkar et alii (2004) – testing of several car-following models
– time series data of nine vehicles forming a single platoon– equipped with GPS + post-processing allowing for an accuracy of about 1 cm– Data gathered on a test-track in Japan
Calibration of car-following models
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Given a car-following model A set of parameters needs to be calibrated
• Car-following parameters are expected to be:– Different in different contexts (because of different driving
behaviours)• Extra urban (controlled accesses, ramps, few disturbance from turn-
movements, …)• “Urban” (intersections, … major non-freeway roads)
– Distributed among drivers
• Given a context– Ability to reproduce traffic conditions should be in the model it-
self, not in parameters– Parameters should be calibrated over a wide variety of traffic
conditions (more or less heavy congestion, different average speeds, … ) over a wide variety of leader trajectories
Car-following parameters calibration
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Fix the driver– For each given context
• Let the leader behave in a wide variety of ways• Observe the driver (as a follower) over time• Capture reactions to leader trajectory over time
calibrate parameters
– If you have a platoon, you can simultaneously gather data for more than one follower
• Assuming all drivers are similar (each driver is the leader for the following one)
– calibrate (average) parameter values for the given context by using more data from a single experiment
Calibrating for different contexts
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Like in the previous case, but…
• Fix the context– Observe several drivers (as followers) and their reaction to
leaders’ trajectories (the most various is possible)• By using long platoons• And/or by repeating several time the experiment in the same
context with a different driver (as follower)– Calibrate not only average drivers’ behaviours but also
dispersion of parameters distribution
Calibration of dispersion among drivers
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Calibration for different contexts (one driver or “similar” driver) require less data (is less expensive) than calibration of parameters dispersion
• Also, is less useful in microscopic models practical implementations (almost all of them assume different drivers groups)
Calibration of car following parameters
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Experiment on-field (real context)
• 5 professional GPS devices (rent of 35K€ for 10 months – not specifically available for car-following experiments)
– 1 device as ground-control (in order to apply differential post-processing techniques)
– 1 device to observe the trajectory of the leader of the platoon– 3 device to gather data for the platoon of the 3 followers
• Platoons of max 3 followers
Our experiment
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• GPS devices shared with others (for different purposes)– Available drivers
• 2 Leaders (Vincenzo Punzo & Fulvio Simonelli)• 6 Followers (Students: Andrea, Davide, Domenico, Carlo, Carmine,
Emilio)
– 2 Platoons (platoon 1 and platoon 2)
• Experiments in “live-traffic” from October 2003 to July 2004– The experiments have been carefully controlled on-field in order
to identify and eliminate from the calibration database unwanted situations like the intrusion of a foreign vehicle into the platoon
• Up to now– Four experimental sessions completely processed in order to
gather data for car-following calibration
Our experiment
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Our experiment
Platoon 1 Platoon 2
Extra - Urban Session 30B
UrbanSession 25B and 25C
Session 30C
• Data gathered with GPS have been post-processed– Expected positioning accuracy: 8 mm– Trajectories verified to be biased
• Electromagnetic interference due to several physical obstacles• Naples is the NATO Navy Headquarter for Mediterranean
– September 11 + Afghanistan + Iraq + …. + “Triple B disaster” (Bush + Blair + Berlusconi)
• After post-processing (filtering)– Sessions 25B and 25C: 7 min of uninterrupted trajectories– Sessions 30B and 30C: 6 min of uninterrupted trajectories
Standard GPS BiasExtra GPS Bias
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Obtaining data from experiments: Post-processing
Experts/perpetrators of the post-processing: V.Punzo and D.Formisano (not me, neither Fulvio)
1. Apply Differential-GPS postprocessing in order to increase positioning accuracy
2. Apply filter in order to:• Obtain a further increase of accuracy;• Have “smooth trajectories” (smoothing speed profiles)
• Smoothing the randomness of the signal• Eliminating unrealistic (incorrect) values of speed and/or
acceleration• Fill (small) gaps in data
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
The filtering procedure(for details remember to ask to Punzo or Formisano)
• Filtering has been applied simultaneously to all vehicles of the platoon• By taking into account both speed and spacing• This avoids some common systematic errors that can arise also from
slightly noisy raw data– Even slight (repeated) errors in speed profile, could determine negative
spacing in case of a vehicle stop– Even more evident for experiments in live traffic
• A Kalman filter was designed (Punzo-Formisano-Torrieri, 2004)– allows to simultaneously estimate trajectories of vehicles of a platoon
from DGPS data in a joined and consistent approach– It cannot be generally used with GPS measurements in case of only
one vehicle– has been here fruitfully used by including also inter-spacing (in addition
to speed) as an additional measurement
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
The filtering procedure
spac
ing
[m]
time [s]
spee
d [
m/s
]
v1
v2
s12
s12 with polar. error
-5
0
5
10
15
120 140 160
tempo [s]
velo
cità
[m/s
]
segnale non filtrato
segnale filtrato (V=0 + Butterw.)
segnale 'vero'
spee
d[m
/s]
experimental data
filtered signal (low-paas ;MATLab)Kalman
Time [s]-5
0
5
10
15
120 140 160
tempo [s]
velo
cità
[m/s
]
segnale non filtrato
segnale filtrato (V=0 + Butterw.)
segnale 'vero'
spee
d[m
/s]
experimental data
filtered signal (low-paas ;MATLab)Kalman
-5
0
5
10
15
120 140 160
tempo [s]
velo
cità
[m/s
]
segnale non filtrato
segnale filtrato (V=0 + Butterw.)
segnale 'vero'
spee
d[m
/s]
experimental data
filtered signal (low-paas ;MATLab)Kalman
Time [s]
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
CALIBRATION AIMS
• We can’t calibrate parameter dispersion among drivers• We can:
– Calibrate parameters (for given drivers) in different contexts– Calibrate for different microscopic simulation models
• Try to argue on robustness of models to parameter calibration• Considered models have been:
– Newell– Gipps– GM/Ahmed
• They are different:– In the modelling approach– In the complexity– In the number of parameters (GM =11 ; GIPPS=5 ; NEWELL=2)
Platoon 1 Platoon 2
Extra - Urban Session 30B
Urban Session 25B and 25C Session 30C
Data availability 7 + 7 minutes 6 + 6 minutes
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
CALIBRATED/TESTED MODELS
• Newell (Trans. Res. B, 2002):– A simplified car-following theory: a lower-order model– Very simple (simplistic?) – minimum number of parameters
– The equation regulating the follower’s behaviour is:
xf(t+τn) = xL(t)-dn
• where xf and xL represent the positions of the follower and of the leader
– The trajectory of the follower is basically the same of the leader• Except for a translation in time and space regulated by parameters
n and dn
– which may vary from user to user
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Gipps:is a safety-based modelprovides two different functional approaches according to the two different driving regimes (free or conditioned flow)
• Parameters adopted in the model are therefore: = reaction time of the drivera(n) = maximum acceleration wanted by the follower,V*(n) = speed wanted by the follower,d(n) = maximum deceleration the follower wants to adoptd*(n)=follower’s estimate of maximum deceleration the leader intends to
adopt
nV
tnv
nV
tnvnatnvtnva **
,025.0
,15.2,,
)1(*
),1(),(),()1(),1(2)()()(),(
222
nd
tnvtnvtnxnstnxndndndtnvb
CALIBRATED/TESTED MODELS
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• GM/Ahmed (as implemented in MITSIMLab – M.I.T.): represents a development of the GM model
classic model of the kind Response =Sensitivity x Stimulus
Moreover:– If not in car-following regime, two heuristic approaches are adopted for
the free-flow regime and the emergency-regime (to avoid vehicles collision)
– the term taking into account density of the segment in which the vehicle is moving has been neglected
• density measurements were missing in the tests performed• (and because of its controversial consistency within a microscopic approach)
Random term has been not explicitly considered
)()()()(
)()( ,, ttVtK
tX
tVta icf
nnnnn
nn
nniicfn
ii
i
i
CALIBRATED/TESTED MODELS
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
IS NOT SMOOTH !!!Response in the car-following regime may lead to improbable acceleration-
deceleration values for some values of the parameters this tend to make the model unstable.
Limits to maximum values of acceleration/deceleration (5 m/sec2, 10 m/sec2) are normally introduced, but these limits inevitably cause that the spacing-function is non-smooth
These considerations are none relevant for the Gipps and Newell models
acc
dec
Res
pons
e su
rfac
e (s
paci
ng)
NOTES about GM/Ahmed
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
• Calibration + Validation (calibrate on a set of measures + validate against a different, comparable set of measure)
• 36 calibrations– Driver 1.1 (platoon 1), Session 25B and 25C (2 sessions), 3 set
of parameters (Newell, Gipps, MITSIM) = 6 calibrations– Driver 1.2, as driver 1.1 = 6 calibrations– Driver 1.3, as driver 1.1 = 6 calibrations– Driver 2.1 (platoon 2), Session 30B and 30C (2 sessions), 3 set
of parameters (Newell, Gipps, MITSIM) = 6 calibrations– Driver 2.2, as driver 2.1 = 6 calibrations– Driver 2.3, as driver 2.1 = 6 calibrations
Calibration/Validation procedure
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Calibration/Validation procedure
36 ValidationsTrajectories of dataset
Calibration Session 25B Session 25 C Session 30B Session 30CSession 25B Drivers 1.1, 1.2, 1.3Session 25C Drivers 1.1, 1.2, 1.3Session 30B Driver 2.1, 2.2, 2.3Session 30C Driver 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Calibration technique• Not sophisticated calibration
– observed vs. simulated measures (headways or speeds or spacing?)– minimising deviation (RMSE)
i
simi
obsi YY
NRMSe
21
;
i obsi
simi
obsi
Y
YY
NRMSPe
21
.
• LINDO’s API have been used for solving the minimization problem above. • Multi-point non linear optimisation algorithm:• Search for minimum starting from different points (to circumvent local minima)
• Which measure has to be chosen for calibration?• Headway?• Speed?• Spacing?
• All models reproduce speeds better than spacing or headway, but…• Calibrating on speeds implies not negligible errors on headway and spacing
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Newell
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Systematic errors (Mean Error) Session 30C
Gipps
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Head Speed Spacing
Headway
Speed
Spacing
Head Speed Spacing
Headway
Speed
Spacing
GM/Ahmed
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Mea
n E
rro
r
Head Speed Spacing
Headway
Speed
Spacing
In conclusionwe have minimised
simulated vs. observed spacing
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Calibration results (RMSPE)
25B (urban)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pair_1-2 pair_2-3 pair_3-4
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
25C (urban)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pair_1-2 pair_2-3 pair_3-4
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
GM/AhmedGippsNewell30B (extra-urban)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pair_1-2 pair_2-3 pair_3-4
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
• GM/Ahmed seems to behave respect to calibration– Simulated data better fit observations
• Newell seems to be the worst performer
30C (urban)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pair_1-2 pair_2-3 pair_3-4
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Validation results“Error surplus” (should be null for perfectly successful validation)
• GM/Ahmed seems to be the worst performer
• Newell performs quite good
• Gipps is controversial
Comparison on validation results 25BC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
driver-1 driver-2 driver-3
GM/Ahmed
Gipps
Newell
Comparison on validation results 25CB
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
driver-1 driver-2 driver-3
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
GM/Ahmed
Gipps
Newell
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Validation results“Error surplus” (should be null for perfectly successful validation)
• GM/Ahmed seems to be the worst performer
• Newell performs quite good
• Gipps is controversial
Comparison on validation results 30BC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
driver-1 driver-2 driver-3
RM
SP
e [%
val
ues
]
GM/Ahmed
Gipps
Newell
Comparison on validation results 30CB
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
driver-1 driver-2 driver-3
RM
SP
e [
% v
alu
es]
GM/Ahmed
Gipps
Newell
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Preliminary Conclusions
• The RMSPEs are surprisingly in agreement with the values by Brockfeld et al (2004)
• Worst values in validation are achieved in the urban/extra-urban cross-validation– This could confirms the behavioural difference of these different
contexts
• GM/Ahmed (11 parameters to be calibrated) tends to overfit observed data?
• Gipps and Newell models show a more robust behaviour • Newell’s model performances are really surprising: despite of its
simplicity it outperforms other models in the validation process– Let say: “It is wrong, but never drastically wrong”
– Does drivers’ behaviour tends to be as “simple” as in the Newell model?
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
General Conclusions
• Validation is problematic– Something is missed in all investigated specifications
– They do not show a behavioural robustness
– Our feeling is that the missing phenomenon is “looking ahead”
• We should continue with all session of experiments– Testing/developing also other model specifications
• Use of different techniques for gathering trajectories should be investigated– Could be aerial-recording (and recognising) a more effective technique?
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
The real truth about our experiment
Aware of the experiment aims: “Please, drive avoiding platoon dispersion (slow, but not too much)”
Unaware of the experiment aims, but…“Please, don’t change lane! Follows the leader”
• May be real behaviours have been influenced– Surely, less influenced than how generally happens in test-track experiments
Workshop “Modelling link flows and travel times for dynamic traffic assignment”Queen’s University of Belfast ----- Wed-Thurs 15-16
Other Conclusions
• Waiting for your contributions/opinions– …
– …
– …