Calibration of Car-Following Models Using Floating Car Data

  • Arne Kesting
  • Martin Treiber


We study the car-following behavior of individual drivers in real city traffic on the basis of publicly available floating car datasets. By means of a nonlinear optimization procedure based on a genetic algorithm, we calibrate the “Intelligent Driver Model” and the “Optimal Velocity Model” by minimizing the deviations between the observed driving dynamics and the simulated trajectory when following the same leading vehicle. The reliability and robustness of the nonlinear fits can be assessed by applying different optimization criteria, i.e., different measures for the deviations between two trajectories. We also investigate the sensitivity of the model parameters. Furthermore, the parameter sets calibrated to a certain trajectory are applied to the other trajectories allowing for model validation. We found that the calibration errors of the Intelligent Driver Model are between 11% and 28%, while the validation errors are between 22% and 30%. The calibration of the Optimal Velocity Model led to larger calibration and validation errors, and stronger parameter variations regarding different objective measures. The results indicate that “intra-driver variability” rather than “inter-driver variability” accounts for a large part of the fit errors.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Brockfeld, R. D. Kühne, and P. Wagner, “Calibration and validation of microscopic traffic flow models,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1876, 62–70 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Punzo and F. Simonelli, “Analysis and comparision of microscopic flow models with real traffic microscopic data,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1934, 53–63 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. J. Ossen and S. P. Hoogendoorn, “Car-following behavior analysis from microscopic trajectory data,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1934, 13–21 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), “Clearing house for transport data and transport models,”, – Access date: May 5, 2007.
  5. 5.
    M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,” Physical Review E 62, 1805–1824 (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Bando, K. Hasebe, A. Nakayama, A. Shibata, and Y. Sugiyama, “Dynamical model of traffic congestion and numerical simulation,” Physical Review E 51, 1035–1042 (1995). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Treiber and D. Helbing, “Memory effects in microscopic traffic models and wide scattering in flow-density data,” Physical Review E 68, 046119 (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Treiber, A. Kesting, and D. Helbing, “Understanding widely scattered traffic flows, the capacity drop, and platoons as effects of variance-driven time gaps,” Physical Review E 74, 016123 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Treiber, A. Kesting, and D. Helbing, “Delays, inaccuracies and anticipation in microscopic traffic models,” Physica A 360, 71–88 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arne Kesting
    • 1
  • Martin Treiber
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Transport & EconomicsTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations