|
| Model category | Classical model name | Distinctive features and advantages of modified models | Limitations of modified models | References |
|
| Desired measure models | IDM | (i) Taking desired velocity and desired headway into account | (i) Slow response | [45–49] |
| (ii) Taking traffic capacity into account | (ii) Variations of headway larger than ACC or CACC type of CAVs |
| (iii) Producing smooth car-following behavior | (iii) Producing unrealistic deceleration/acceleration |
| (iv) Producing more realistic vehicle dynamics, more stable | (iv) Ignoring asymmetric behavior of vehicles |
| | (v) Ignoring technical limitation of vehicle for acceleration |
| | (vi) Ignoring anticipation factor |
| | (vii) Ignoring mechanical capability of vehicle |
| | (viii) Ignoring driving variability |
| | (ix) Ignoring communication capability of CAVs |
| | (x) Ignoring past information of traffic and driving behavior as feedback |
| . | (xi) Considering delay time as same as driver |
| Helly | (i) Collision free | (i) Ignoring asymmetric behavior of vehicles | [50–54] |
| (ii) Considering the acceleration and velocity of following vehicle to evaluate desired space headway | (ii) Ignoring technical limitation of vehicle for acceleration |
| (iii) Decreasing traffic breakdown at the bottleneck | (iii) Ignoring communication capability of CAVs |
| (iv) Smooth transition between free flow and CF modes | (iv) Ignoring past information of traffic and driving behavior as feedback |
| (v) The absence of string instability | (v) Most parameters are unobservable in nature |
| (vi) Considerably smaller velocity disturbances at road bottlenecks | (vi) Ignoring mechanical capability of vehicle |
| (vii) Decreasing the probability of traffic breakdown at the bottleneck in mixed traffic flow | (vii) Producing unrealistic deceleration/acceleration |
|
| Collision avoidance models | Kometani | (i) Collision free | (i) Ignoring stimulus-response | [45, 55–57] |
| (ii) Maintains an optimal balance among safe and efficient driving | (ii) Ignoring asymmetric behavior of vehicles |
| (iii) A small variation ends the reaction for the following driver | (iii) Ignoring technical limitation of vehicle for acceleration |
| | (iv) Ignoring desired velocity |
| | (v) Ignoring communication capability of CAVs |
| | (vi) Ignoring past information of traffic and driving behavior as feedback |
| | (vii) Unnecessary large headway happens particularly when velocity is high |
| Optimal velocity Models | Optimal velocity (OV) model | (i) Considering anticipation driving behavior | (i) Producing unrealistic deceleration/acceleration | [58–60] |
| (ii) Producing rational interactions between two vehicles in terms of vehicle dynamics with acceptable delay | (ii) Ignoring past information of traffic and driving behavior as feedback |
| (iii) Considering communication capability of CAVs | (iii) Ignoring mechanical capability of vehicle for acceleration |
| (iv) Ensures congestion occurs instead of accidents | (iv) Safe space headway is constant |
| (v) Simplicity of model | (v) Is not collision free |
| Full velocity differences (FVD) model | (i) Considering anticipation driving behavior | (i) Ignoring technical limitation of vehicle during acceleration | [61–64] |
| (ii) All advantages of FVD model | (ii) Ignoring mechanical capability of vehicle for acceleration |
| (iii) Considered past information as feedback | (iii) Ignoring communication capability of CAVs |
| (iv) Considering Communication capability of CAVs | (iv) Is not collision free |
| | (v) Safe space headway is constant |
|
