recently , the theoretical and empirical foundations of the physics of traffic flow ( for a review see refs .
@xcite ) has come into the focus of the physical community .
the motion of individual cars has many peculiarities , since it is controlled by motivated driver behavior , together with some physical boundaries .
nevertheless , on macroscopic scales the vehicle ensembles displays phenomena like phase formation and phase transitions widely met in physical systems ( see , e.g. , refs .
so , the cooperative behavior of cars treated as active particles seems to be of a more general nature than the mechanical laws and constructing a consistent theory of traffic flow `` from scratch '' is up to now a challenging problem .    to describe individual car dynamics a great variety of microscopic models
have been proposed .
these models differ in the details of the interaction between cars and the time update rule , ranging from differential equations to cellular automata  @xcite .
there has been a big deal of work on the macroscopic behavior emerging from the microscopic dynamics when exploring the behavior of systems of interacting cars . however , there is still a lot of controversy in both the macroscopic behavior when compared to reality @xcite , and in the microscopic foundations of the individual car dynamics itself @xcite .
one currently adopted approach to specify the microscopic governing equations of the individual car motion is the so - called social force model .
more details can be found in refs .
@xcite ; here only the basic ideas are touched on . at each moment @xmath0 of time , a driver @xmath1 changes the speed @xmath2 of her car depending on the road conditions and the arrangement of the neighboring cars : @xmath3 the term @xmath4 describes the motion of car @xmath1 on the empty road , whereas the term @xmath5 allows for the interaction of car @xmath6 with car @xmath7 ( @xmath8 ) .
the interaction is due to the necessity for driver @xmath6 to keep a certain safe headway distance between the cars .
all the models mentioned above use various _ anstze _ for the last term .
the most interesting special case , which covers the majority of all traffic flow situations , is that of single - lane traffic . here , all cars can be ordered according to their position on the road in the car motion direction @xmath9 , here @xmath10 .
most models take into account solely nearest neighboring cars @xmath6 and @xmath11 , i.e. , @xmath12 for @xmath13 and , may be , @xmath14 only . however , more complicated models exist that can be described as models with anticipation @xcite or the so - called intelligent driver model @xcite .
the earliest `` follow - the - leader '' models @xcite relate the acceleration @xmath15 of car @xmath1 to the velocity difference @xmath16 only , i.e. , @xmath17 where @xmath18 is the characteristic time scale of the velocity relaxation . in subsequent generalizations of this model
@xmath18 became a function of the car motion state , in particular , of the current velocity @xmath19 and the headway @xmath20 ( for a review see refs .
@xcite ) . here , @xmath21 is the car length . in refs .
@xcite another approach called the optimal velocity model is proposed that describes the individual car motion by @xmath22\ , ,   \label{int.2}\ ] ] where @xmath23 is the steady - state velocity ( the optimal velocity ) chosen by drivers as function of the headway @xmath24 between the cars .
it should be noted that this approach is related to much earlier safety distance models @xcite .    concerning the fundamentals of approximations such as @xmath25 , it is noted that there are actually two stimuli affecting the driver behavior .
one of them is the necessity to move at the mean speed of traffic flow , in the given case at the speed @xmath26 of car @xmath11 .
so , first , driver @xmath1 should control the velocity difference @xmath16 .
the other is the necessity to maintain a safe headway distance @xmath27 depending on the current velocity @xmath28 .
the `` following - the - leader '' models mainly take into account the former stimulus . the optimal velocity model , conversely , allows for the latter stimulus only .
more sophisticated approximations , e.g. , refs .
@xcite to name but a few , allow for both stimuli .
note also a simple _ ansatz _ called the combined model in ref .
@xcite which is also related to the intelligent driver model @xcite :    [ imodels ] @xmath29\\      & & { } -\frac{\kappa}{\tau_v}\left[v_\alpha      -\vartheta _ { \text{opt}}(h_\alpha ) \right ] \ , .
%     -\vartheta _ { \text{opt}}(x_{\alpha + 1}-x_{\alpha } ) \right ] \ , ,      \label{cm}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this equation takes into account both stimuli via a phenomenological coefficient @xmath30 .
this is also the case for the helly model  @xcite which can be written as ( cf
.  ref .
@xcite ) @xmath31\\      & & { } + \frac1{\tau_v l_h}\left [      ( x_{\alpha + 1}-x_\alpha)-h_{\text{opt}}(v_\alpha)\right ] \ , ,      \label{helmod}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath32 is a certain spatial scale and @xmath33 is the optimal headway distance chosen by drivers when moving at speed @xmath34 . ref .
@xcite used a linear _ ansatz _ for @xmath33 . later
@xcite , this model was generalized to allow for the dependence of the kinetic coefficients on the motion state .    however , the question whether a collection of variables such as @xmath35 specifies the acceleration @xmath36 completely is not trivial
. drivers are characterized by the motivated behavior rather than physical regularities .
for example , memory effects may be essential and can destroy the direct relationship @xmath37 . up to now , memory effects in car following modelling have been treated only in a simplified version .
this has been done by relating the current acceleration @xmath38 to the velocities @xmath39 , @xmath40 and the headway distance @xmath41 taken at a previous moment ( @xmath42 ) of time ( for a review of such an approach concerning with the `` following - the - leader '' models see refs .
@xcite , regarding the optimal velocity model see refs .
@xcite ) . here
@xmath43 is the formal delay time in the driver response which is treated as a constant .
such an approach , however , is rather formal , because , first , it is not clear why the memory effects relate only two moments of time instead of a certain interval as a whole .
second , a simple physiological delay in the driver response as well as the mental driver estimation of the surrounding situation should contribute to the value of @xmath43 . if the latter contribution is essential the delay time @xmath43 is to depend substantially on the state of car motion .
moreover , from our point of view the memory effects stem from the fact that the description of individual car motion is a boundary value problem rather than an initial value problem .
indeed , at the current moment of time the headway distance and the car velocity are quantities given for the driver beforehand . correcting the car motion she should choose such a driving strategy that in a certain time interval the car velocity and headway distance attain their optimal stationary values , at least , approximately .
these memory effects are the topic of this paper .
we propose that drivers plan their behavior for a certain time in advance  @xcite instead of simply reacting to the surrounding situation .
similar ideas related to the optimum design of a distance controlling driver assistance system are discussed in ref .
mathematically , the driver s planning of the further motion is just to find extremals of a certain priority functional that ranks outcomes of different driving strategies .
the derivation of microscopic governing equations for systems with motivated behavior based on a certain `` optimal self - organization '' principle has been discussed recently @xcite .
the assumption adopted in these works is that individuals try to minimize the interaction strength or , equivalently , to optimize their own success and to minimize the efforts required for this .
the approach discussed here applies to the concepts of mathematical economics , namely , to the notion of preferences and utility ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) . in ref .
@xcite a specific form of the priority functional has been proposed . from that , a certain _ ansatz _ like the combined model  ( [ cm ] ) or the helly model  ( [ helmod ] ) could be _
derived_. nevertheless , the question how to find the priority functional `` from scratch '' remains open .    in the present paper the priority functional
is constructed by applying to general properties of the driver behavior for a simplified situation .
a car following ( no overtaking allowed ) a lead car which is driven with constant speed @xmath44 is considered .
the task is to derive governing equations for the following car motion specified by the time dependence of the velocity @xmath45 and the headway distance @xmath46 .
assuming a driver to be able of comparing any two states @xmath47 , @xmath48 , the phase plane @xmath49 can be ordered by a preference relation @xmath50 .
therefore , the existence of a cost function @xmath51 may be assumed such that : @xmath52 typically , @xmath53 is called the utility function and ( for it ) the relation @xmath50 matches the inequality @xmath54 . here , the use of condition  ( [ 1.1 ] ) is preferred , because then the cost function @xmath51 is similar to the free energy of physical systems , with the minima as the stationary states .
obviously , the cost function @xmath51 can not be specified completely because a composite function @xmath55 $ ] also meets condition  ( [ 1.1 ] ) for any increasing function @xmath56 $ ] .
therefore , at the current stage of the theory development any approximation or _ ansatz _ adopted for the cost function @xmath51 has no meaning .    to overcome this problem and to fix a certain class of the cost functions the preference relation defined on a set of car motion paths
@xmath57 is considered .
a car moving from one point to another can meet different states of traffic flow .
it enables one to unite various points on the phase plane in an element treated as a whole with respect to the driver preference , reducing the numerical uncertainty in their evaluation .
these parts are supposed , first , to connect the same origin - destination pair @xmath58 and , second , to go through a traffic flow pattern whose structure is known to the driver beforehand .
such a set obviously can be ordered by the driver preference and the corresponding cost functional @xmath59 is assumed to exist . here
, only the fact that a car motion path can consist of various fragments of the phase plane is concerned with .
analysis of the real car dynamics is postponed to the following section .     and @xmath60 illustrating the property of the cost functional with respect to path partitioning .
letters @xmath61 and @xmath62 stand for the origin and destination points , respectively , and the symbols @xmath63 denote the local states of traffic flow.[f2],width=264 ]    figure  [ f2 ] shows two paths @xmath1 and @xmath60 which are equivalent with respect to the driver preference .
they differ from each other only in the order of passing through the traffic states , @xmath64 for the path @xmath1 and @xmath65 for the path @xmath60 .
it demonstrates the fact that if a path goes through a certain small neighborhood of the point @xmath66 one or many times then only the cumulative time interval @xmath67 during which the system was located in the given neighborhood contributes to the cost functional .
the corresponding weight coefficient @xmath51 obviously plays the role of a certain cost function for the given traffic state .
the resulting cost functional for the whole path is @xmath68dt\ , .
\label{1.2}\ ] ] if the driver has incomplete information about the traffic flow pattern ahead she plans the further motion only within some limits , spatial and temporal ones .
this can be taken into account by introducing a certain cofactor in front of the function @xmath51 which depends on spatial coordinates or time .
the initial introduction of the cost function remains the freedom of its choice too `` wide '' , as was noted above .
the constructed form of the cost functional reduces this freedom substantially .
namely , let @xmath69 and @xmath70 be two functions entering a cost functional similar to ( [ 1.2 ] ) with the prediction effect such that they preserve the preference relation with respect to the car motion paths on an one - lane road . then , as shown in appendix  [ appp : a ] , these cost functions are related by the expressions    @xmath71    depending on the spatial or temporal limitation in the driver prediction . here
@xmath72 is an arbitrary positive constant and @xmath73 , @xmath74 are some functions of the headway distance @xmath24 or the time @xmath0 . in other words ,
relations  ( [ cf.4 ] ) , ( [ cf.11 ] ) specify the family of the admissible type of cost functions preserving the driver preference relation and , in addition , correspond to linear transformation of the cost functional ( appendix  [ appp : a ] ) .    for example ,
@xmath75^{2}$ ] is also a cost functional .
however , formula  ( [ 1.2 ] ) enables us to fix its specific form being linear with respect to time integration along car motion paths .
we note that this construction conforms with regarding the motion cost as the `` physiological '' cost of driving per time , i.e. , having the meaning of a rate .
both of these families possess the same freedom in choosing a specific form of the cost function especially dealing with the extremals of the cost functional .
in fact , the type  ( [ cf.11 ] ) is chosen in the following .      in the following , the priority function of the car motion state with respect to the velocity @xmath34 and the reciprocal value @xmath76 of the headway distance will be characterized .
note , that the value @xmath77 is not the real car density on a highway .
the present analysis ignores the car length , so we have preferred to use the value @xmath77 defined as above .
the most preferable state is the motion on an empty road ( @xmath78 ) at maximum speed @xmath79 .
this maximum speed is determined by external factors .
so , at @xmath80 the cost function @xmath81 has its global minimum : @xmath82 set equal to zero keeping in mind the aforesaid about the freedom in specifying the cost function . since there is no other minimum for the motion on an empty road,@xmath83 can be fixed .
because of the car construction a driver can visually control the headway distance within some value @xmath842  m. when the headway distance @xmath24 attains such values a driver has to stop her car because of possible collision even at sufficiently slow velocities .
so , @xmath85 coincides with the characteristic headway distance in dense jams where the car density attains the possible maximum . in the following ,
all headway distances are related to the scale @xmath85 and the dimensionless variable @xmath86 is used .
when not moving at all ( @xmath87 ) and the density of cars surrounding the given car does not come close to the limit values , i.e. , @xmath88 , it does not matter how many cars are located in the vicinity .
so the assumption that at @xmath87 and for @xmath89 the cost function is independent of @xmath77 can be used : @xmath90 in all other cases , @xmath91 depends on certain combinations of @xmath77 and @xmath34 rather than on @xmath77 individually , at least when @xmath92 .    considering the behavior of @xmath91 for a fixed speed @xmath34
it can be stated that driving with small values of @xmath24 ( large values of @xmath77 ) requires a lot of effort .
thus , @xmath91 increases with @xmath77 .
the opposite case of small values of @xmath77 ( large values of @xmath24 ) deserves special attention . without the possibility of overtaking no especially attractive headway distance
can be marked .
therefore , we assume that the cost function @xmath93 possesses the only one minimum attained at the boundary point @xmath94 provided the velocity @xmath34 is fixed .    keeping in mind the aforesaid it is reasonable to write @xmath95 for @xmath96 . here
the exponent @xmath97 is a constant and the function @xmath98 as @xmath99 .
since the cost function attains its minimum at the boundary point we may set @xmath100 .
moreover , the latter term on the right - hand side of exp .
( [ 1.6na ] ) can be interpreted as a certain `` interaction '' potential between the following and lead cars which is long - distant one for @xmath100 . a detailed analysis of effects caused by the value of the exponent @xmath97 requires an individual study .
here the value @xmath101 is actually chosen as just a simple reasonable assumption . since the effect of the surrounding cars is depressed for small values of the car velocity @xmath34 the function @xmath102 is also to attain its minimum at @xmath103 .
therefore , @xmath104 as @xmath105 should hold . in other words , inside a certain neighborhood of the origin
@xmath106 the following expansion @xmath107 can be adopted .    ) .[f3 ] ]    taking into account these speculations about the behavior of the cost function @xmath108 caused by variations of both its arguments , the following simple _ ansatz _ will be used subsequently : @xmath109 figure  [ f3 ] displays this function .
it has only one global minimum at @xmath78 and @xmath110 . for a fixed velocity @xmath34 it attains a local minimum at the boundary @xmath78 .
_ ansatz _  ( [ 1.7 ] ) generalizes the adopted assumptions about the cost function .
the former term takes into account relations  ( [ 1.3 ] ) , ( [ 1.4 ] ) , the latter one is based on approximation  ( [ 1.6n ] ) .
of course , the parabolic _ ansatz _  ( [ 1.7 ] ) is approximate only in the limit @xmath111 .
since this is the main region of interest , this does not constrain its usefulness . to deal with the car dynamics
we should construct the cost functional @xmath112 for the car motion paths @xmath113 treated now as continuous functions of time @xmath0 .
we note that the time dependence of headway distance @xmath46 gives us the complete information about the car dynamics due to the relationship @xmath114 .
leaping ahead , we say that facing this problem it is necessary to introduce additional notions .
first , we should expand the phase space in describing the car motion state because transient processes are now the subject of consideration .
second , drivers plan their behavior for a certain time in advance instead of simply reacting to the surrounding situation .
so we should specify the region inside which a driver can monitor the traffic flow evolution and , thus , plan driving her car .
a priority functional similar to eq .
( [ 1.2 ] ) must span the time interval corresponding to this region .
beyond it the contribution of the path fragments to evaluating the car motion quality at the given moment of time has to be fairly minor .
dealing with transient processes in the car motion we should consider once more the collection of phase variables characterizing the cost of car motion at the current moment of time .
keeping in mind conventional driver experience , we will expand the current state of car motion given by headway @xmath24 and velocity @xmath34 with the car acceleration @xmath115 .
this is essential because a driver can not change the position and velocity of her car immediately , they vary continuously in time and contain no sharp jumps .
conversely , a driver controls the acceleration directly governing the car motion . besides , she can change the acceleration practically without delay because in the present analysis it is quite reasonable to ignore time scales related to physiological properties of the driver or to the mechanical properties of the car .
so , the cost function @xmath116 for the motion state @xmath117 can be written : @xmath118 where the time scale @xmath119  s characterizes the acceleration capability of the car . in writing
this expression we have assumed that driving without acceleration is preferable .
then , the cost function @xmath120 had been expanded into a taylor series with respect to @xmath115 , keeping the leading term only . according to the result to be obtained the time scale @xmath121 entering expression  ( [ 2.1 ] ) and the one used in equation  ( [ cm ] ) are practically the same .
it should be noted that confining ourselves to expansion  ( [ 2.1 ] ) with respect to @xmath115 the difference between acceleration and deceleration processes has been lost . in reality , they are different . ignoring this difference leads to models where cars can crash .
it is possible to take into account this effect using the approach under development , which , however , is worthy of individual investigation and will be done somewhere else .     and
its relationship with the limit angle of perception @xmath122.[f4 ] ]    for a real driver , various thresholds in the driver recognition of hazards and obstacles exist @xcite .
one of them is the distance @xmath123 at which a driver can recognize the behavior of other objects .
this distance is usually related to the threshold of the visual angle @xmath122 subtended , for example , by vehicles ahead ( fig .
[ f4 ] ) . the value of @xmath122 can be estimated as @xmath12430  min of arc @xcite . the critical angle @xmath122 , the characteristics height @xmath125 of cars , and the corresponding mean distance @xmath123 are related by @xmath126 this allows for the estimation of the recognition distance as @xmath127400  m setting @xmath128  m and @xmath12915  minutes of arc .
as previously  @xcite , we relate the driver anticipation with the region of size @xmath123 in front that is clearly observable and where she can recognize the car behavior .
a driver plans her motion based on the information received by monitoring traffic flow inside the observable region . under normal conditions
this region should enable her to govern the motion effectively , for example , to decelerate in advance avoiding a possible accident . therefore its size @xmath123 has to meet the inequality @xmath130 .
leaping ahead , we introduce the value @xmath131 treated as a small parameter in the theory to be developed . in particular , for @xmath132  s , @xmath133  km / h , and @xmath134  m we have @xmath135    the size @xmath123 of the recognition distance can be estimated using another argumentation .
if @xmath136  s is the typical deceleration time from the velocity @xmath79 attained on the given empty road to zero value then the estimate @xmath137 should hold . for @xmath138
km / h we have again @xmath139  m. now the cost functional of car motion can be written in an integral form as expression  ( [ 1.2 ] ) containing the integrand  ( [ 2.1 ] ) .
the car is assumed to be located at point @xmath140 along the road and to move with speed @xmath34 at the current moment @xmath0 of time .
the possible paths of further motion @xmath141 form the set @xmath142 on which the cost functional is defined .
here and below gothic letters will be used to label the path variables .
the function @xmath143 allows for a derivation of all the dynamical variables , the headway distance @xmath144 , the car velocity @xmath145 , and the acceleration @xmath146 of the trial car path .
the cost functional evaluating the quality of the path @xmath143 can be written as    @xmath147      \mathcal{f}^d(\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{u},\mathfrak{a})\,d\mathfrak{t}\,,\\ \intertext{or }      \mathcal{l}\{\mathfrak{h}\ } & =      \int_t^\infty \exp\left[-\frac{v}{\lambda}(\mathfrak{t}-t ) \right ]      \mathcal{f}^d(\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{u},\mathfrak{a})\,d\mathfrak{t}\ , .
\label{2.7}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    forms  ( [ 2.4n ] ) and ( [ 2.7 ] ) correspond to the driver prediction with spatial or temporal limitations , respectively .
the cost functional of form  ( [ 2.4n ] ) was used in @xcite .
subsequently , functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) is used because its form simplifies the mathematical manipulations when the velocity @xmath44 of the lead car is fixed .
in particular , dealing with functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) we can specify directly the set of trial paths @xmath148 using solely the time dependence of @xmath149 of the headway distance .
the path variables @xmath150 , @xmath151 are completely determined by the dependence @xmath149 : @xmath152 furthermore , the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) matches the driver prediction with temporal limitation , the mechanism which also allows for the interpretation of the recognition region size in terms of @xmath153 .
however , both of the cost functionals lead practically to the same results for the analyzed situation .
each one of trial paths originates at time @xmath0 and starts from @xmath154 on the phase plane determined by the headway distance and velocity of the car at the current time @xmath0 .
since we investigate the car motion inside traffic flow but not processes of leaving it we assume that time variations @xmath46 of the headway distance are bounded .
therefore the trial paths fulfil @xmath155 and do exhibit bounded variations only as time goes to infinity .
in other words , there is a constant @xmath156 with @xmath157    in what follows , the driver behavior will be described by the extremals of the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) . using the standard variational technique and taking into account conditions  ( [ 2.5 ] ) , ( [ 2.6 ] ) the governing equation for these extremals
can be derived : @xmath158    to study the spectral properties of eq .
( [ 2.8 ] ) it is linearized around the stationary solution @xmath159 .
its eigenfunctions can be found by the _
ansatz _ @xmath160 the obtained eigenvalue equation is given by @xmath161 with the coefficients @xmath162 and the derivatives are taken at the stationary point @xmath159 .
the inequality @xmath163 is supposed to hold beforehand , in particular , it is the case for the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) .
equation  ( [ 2.800 ] ) possesses four roots , one pair @xmath164 of them have positive real parts , the other @xmath165 have negative ones .
since the eigenfunctions with the eigenvalues @xmath165 diverge as @xmath166 we must omit them by virtue of condition  ( [ 2.6 ] ) . roughly speaking
, these divergent eigenfunctions describe the process of a driver leaving traffic flow , for example , to stop the car .
such processes are not under consideration . the former pair of eigenvalues are given by : @xmath167^{\tfrac{1}{2}}.      \label{2.804}\ ] ] so , in a small neighborhood of the stationary point @xmath159 of equation  ( [ 2.8 ] ) any extremal @xmath168 can be written as @xmath169 where @xmath170 and @xmath171 are some constants .    equation  ( [ 2.8 ] ) is of fourth order , so its general solution is specified by four conditions .
solutions that diverge as time goes to infinity have to be omitted ( they are related to @xmath165 ) .
their divergence is due to the exponential cofactor in integral  ( [ 2.7 ] ) so it is retained beyond a small neighborhood of the stationary point @xmath172 .
therefore , only two conditions are needed to specify the desired solution of eq .
( [ 2.8 ] ) .
in particular , the initial headway distance @xmath24 and the car velocity @xmath34 determine it completely .
the latter statement can also be proved for the more general form  ( [ 2.4n ] ) of the cost functional @xcite .       containing the current time @xmath0 as its argument .
so the found optimal paths @xmath168 depend on the time @xmath0 when the driver plans the further motion .
the right panel presents the ideal case where the driver is able to evaluate the motion cost precisely and the corresponding cost function @xmath173 does not contain the time @xmath0 .
so , the optimal path family degenerates into one curve .
it should be noted that the latter is correct even if the time @xmath174 enters the cost function via variations of the lead car velocity .
[ fn ] ]    in the previous section the dynamical cost functional was stated . at the next step the driver strategy based on this evaluation of the motion quality
should be described ( fig .
following @xcite , it is supposed that the driver , first , in planning the further motion chooses the path @xmath175 minimizing the motion cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) , @xmath176 to do this the driver `` solves '' equation  ( [ 2.8 ] ) subject to conditions  ( [ 2.5 ] ) , ( [ 2.6 ] ) and , thus , get the optimal path of further driving , @xmath177 . as noted in the previous section the optimal path choice is completely determined by the current car velocity @xmath34 and the headway distance @xmath24 .
the terminal conditions , i.e. , the goal of reaching the steady - state motion is implied . since the driver controls the car motion through choosing the adequate value @xmath115 of acceleration she has to `` find '' the second derivative of @xmath168 with respect to the former argument @xmath174 ( see exp .
( [ 2.4 ] ) ) and , then , to `` calculate '' the result at the current time .
therefore , @xmath178 relates the current car acceleration @xmath115 to the current headway distance @xmath24 and the car velocity @xmath34 .
formula  ( [ 2.61 ] ) describes the driver s choice at the current moment @xmath0 of time . to convert it into the governing equation of car motion we adopt the second assumption that the driver performs this choice continuously : @xmath179 all the car following models based on this equation , but with different particular forms of the cost function @xmath180 may be categorized as the rational car dynamics approximation .
equation  ( [ 2.62 ] ) holds even if the cost function @xmath181 depends explicitly on the time @xmath0 at which the driver plans her further motion .
then , the driver evaluation of traffic flow state will change in time .
therefore , the resulting path @xmath182 of the real car motion envelops the family of the optimal paths @xmath183 generated at different moments @xmath0 of time ( fig .
[ fn ] , left panel ) .
the present paper assumes driving to be perfect .
the driver s choice is based on the precise knowledge of the cost function @xmath184 depending solely on the current headway distance @xmath24 , car velocity @xmath34 , acceleration @xmath115 , and , may be , the current time @xmath0 . it does not depend on the moment of time when the driver evaluates the possible paths of her further motion .
this assumption leads to what is called the nash equilibrium in game theory @xcite .
if , at time @xmath185 the driver has found the optimal path @xmath186 of the car motion ( which meets equation  ( [ 2.8 ] ) and does not contain explicitly @xmath185 ) , then any re - computation a certain time @xmath187 later gives the same result , @xmath188 for @xmath189 .
in other words , if at time @xmath185 the driver has chosen an optimal path @xmath190 then the further motion will be described by it independently of either the driver follows it without correction or optimizes the car motion continuously ( fig .  [ fn ] , right panel ) .
the nash equilibrium in the driver strategy enables us to conclude that equation  ( [ 2.8 ] ) describes the real car dynamics , not only the imaginary paths existing in the driver s mind during her planing of the further motion .
in particular , it can be rewritten in a form containing the real acceleration  @xmath115 , velocity @xmath34 , and headway distance @xmath24 : @xmath191 in the vicinity of the stationary point @xmath192 its solution is actually given by _ ansatz _
( [ 2.56 ] ) , which immediately leads us to the following expressions for the amplitudes    [ 2.13 ] @xmath193    and relates the car acceleration @xmath115 to the car velocity @xmath34 and the headway distance @xmath24 : @xmath194 .
\label{2.13aa}\ ] ] these results are analyzed individually .
the stationary point @xmath195 of equation  ( [ 2.9 ] ) gives the headway @xmath196 which the driver chooses in order to follow the lead car at speed @xmath44 .
in particular , the expression @xmath197 specifies the relationship between the values of the headway @xmath24 and the car velocity @xmath34 for the stationary traffic flow imitated by the given car following problem . solving eq .
( [ 2.11 ] ) for the car velocity @xmath34 the optimal velocity approximation is obtained , @xmath198 . in particular , for the specific form  ( [ 1.7 ] ) of the cost function @xmath51 we immediately get for @xmath199 @xmath200 where the spatial scale @xmath62 is given by expression @xmath201 relation  ( [ 2.12 ] ) or similar sigmoid functions are widely used in current literature . in particular , for @xmath202  m and @xmath203  m exp .
( [ 2.51 ] ) gives the estimate @xmath204  m typically ascribed to the spatial scale @xmath62 .       and the ratio @xmath205 vs @xmath206 . in drawing these curves exp .
( [ 2.804 ] ) with @xmath207 and @xmath208 was used .
the solid curve is @xmath209 , the dashed curve is @xmath210 .
[ fbrdm],title="fig:",width=264 ] +    by introducing the time scale @xmath211 and the coefficient @xmath212 the car dynamics equation  ( [ 2.13aa ] ) can be rewritten as @xmath213.\ ] ] equation  ( [ lge ] ) plays a significant role in models that describe non - rational driver behavior @xcite , where expression  ( [ lge ] ) specifies an optimal acceleration that could be chosen by rational drivers and the parameter @xmath214 was introduced phenomenologically . here
, @xmath214 can be computed using the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) .
it is plotted as well as the ratio @xmath205 as a function of the variable @xmath206 ( fig .
[ fbrdm ] ) .
this representation is due to the fact that the coefficient @xmath215 ( for the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) @xmath216 for @xmath217 ) , the coefficient @xmath218 by virtue of the adopted assumption  ( [ 2.sigma ] ) , whereas the coefficient @xmath206 varies around unity .
below , the latter will be justified and the dependence of the coefficient @xmath206 on the car motion state will be analyzed . as seen in fig .
[ fbrdm ] the time scales @xmath18 and @xmath121 practically coincide with each other and the parameter @xmath214 is a small value .      using again the cost function eq .
( [ 1.7 ] ) , and taking into account @xmath219 and @xmath216 , the optimal velocity dependence @xmath220 is given by eq .
( [ 2.12 ] ) .
the parameter @xmath206 depends as follows on the car motion state @xmath221 it attains the maximum @xmath222 at @xmath223 .
using @xmath224  s , @xmath138  km / h , @xmath225  m , and @xmath226  m , respectively , @xmath227 is obtained .
of course , this is not a precise numerical value , but in general @xmath228 may be assumed .
( labelled by numbers in squares ) .
the solid curves display the relaxation caused by a perturbation in the headway , the dashed one shows the same for a velocity perturbation .
the variations in the headway distance and relative velocity are measured either in units of the initial values @xmath229 and @xmath230 or @xmath231 and @xmath232 , respectively .
[ frc],title="fig:",width=264 ] +   ( labelled by numbers in squares ) .
the solid curves display the relaxation caused by a perturbation in the headway , the dashed one shows the same for a velocity perturbation .
the variations in the headway distance and relative velocity are measured either in units of the initial values @xmath229 and @xmath230 or @xmath231 and @xmath232 , respectively .
[ frc],title="fig:",width=264 ] +    the precise value of @xmath233 matters . according to sec .
[ sec : ee ] the car dynamics is characterized by two eigenfunctions with eigenvalues given by eq .
( [ 2.804 ] ) .
when @xmath234 , the relaxation is a pure fading process characterized by time scales @xmath235 and @xmath236 .
otherwise , @xmath237 , the relaxation process is characterized by the complex eigenvalues , @xmath238 , @xmath239 . however in this region their dependence on @xmath206 is sufficiently weak , @xmath240{\omega}$ ] for @xmath241 as follows from exp .
( [ 2.804 ] )
. therefore the car relaxation processes should be rather insensitive to the value of @xmath206 as it varies from unity to about ten .
figure  [ frc ] demonstrates this fact showing the relaxation curves induced by deviations from the stationary values of the headway and the car velocity individually .
all the corresponding curves lie near each other , only for @xmath242 a larger deviation is visible .
this is because for such values of @xmath206 the eigenvalues @xmath243 differ essentially .
by contrast , the cost of acceleration , i.e. , the cost of correcting the car motion depends strongly on @xmath206 because this component of the cost function  ( [ 2.1 ] ) varies linearly with @xmath206 to the first approximation .
since the maximum @xmath233 of the parameter @xmath206 is attained at @xmath244 this means that the greater the value of @xmath206 , the larger is the cost of the car governing with respect to the cost of motion in its own accord .      keeping in mind the aforementioned speculations
let us assume that the composed parameter @xmath233 takes a certain fixed numerical value , @xmath245 .
it leads immediately to a certain relationship between the initial quantities of the model , @xmath79 , @xmath123 , @xmath121 , @xmath85 . in this collection
only the optimal velocity @xmath246 on empty road is determined solely by the driver behavior .
the other parameters , namely , the size @xmath123 of recognition region , the characteristic time scale @xmath121 of the car ability to accelerate or decelerate , and the characteristic headway @xmath85 that drivers can control reliably and should be about the typical headway distance in dense jams are determined by other mechanisms , e.g. , car properties , driver physiology , visual conditions and the like . at first glance
such relations seem to be impossible , because a driver chooses the optimal velocity on empty road depending on the road conditions , speed regulations , weather , _
etc_. nevertheless , there is an additional factor affecting the car motion on empty roads , the driver experience .
if the driver preference for the empty road velocity stems from here experience of driving in low density traffic flow then such relations can exist .    in the given model this assumptions
lead to the expression @xmath247^{\tfrac12 }      \frac{l^{\frac14}\lambda^{\frac34}}{\tau}\ ] ] naturally , the specific form of relation  ( [ 2.vmax ] ) will change if , for example , another _ ansatz _ of the cost function is used , however , its qualitative features should be retained .
these speculations , definitely , are not enough to regard relations similar to formula  ( [ 2.vmax ] ) as an established theoretical result .
we have presented it for discussion only .      as discussed
already there are two stimuli for a driver to change the current motion state .
one is the velocity difference @xmath248 between the leading car and her car .
the second is the difference between the current speed @xmath34 and the optimal speed @xmath23 as function of headway .
models like ( [ imodels ] ) take into account both of them , leaving the determination of the weight coefficients to appropriate empirical or experimental data .
the results obtained so far actually allow to predict these coefficients .     of the combined model  ( [ cm ] ) vs the stationary headway @xmath249 . for comparison ,
the dashed curve shows the optimal velocity , eq .
( [ 2.12]).[fkap],width=264 ]    this can be demonstrated with the combined model  ( [ cm ] ) .
linearizing eq .
( [ cm ] ) around the stationary point @xmath172 and comparing the result with eq .
( [ 2.13aa ] ) we get @xmath250   ^{-1}.      \label{2.cfp4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this expression gives @xmath251 as function of the car motion state .
figure  [ fkap ] plots this dependence for the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) . as seen in fig .
[ fkap ] the weight coefficient @xmath251 is small for all interesting values of the headway distance in the car following regime . only for small headways @xmath252 ( dense jams ) or for large headways @xmath249 exceeding @xmath62 substantially ( free flow ) @xmath251
approaches unity .      as the headway distance @xmath249 varies in the interval @xmath253 the coefficient @xmath254 changes essentially , leading to qualitatively different car dynamics . as mentioned before , when @xmath255 the relaxation exhibits damped oscillations around the stationary point @xmath172 .
this is due to the eigenvalues @xmath256 ( see exp .  ( [ 2.804 ] ) ) having non - zero imaginary parts .
since for @xmath257 their real and imaginary parts are of the same order the car motion relaxation is characterized by one time scale about one ( in units of @xmath121 ) .
this is true also for @xmath258 because @xmath259 there , although the dynamics is a pure fading process now . for still smaller values of @xmath260
the ratio @xmath261 of these eigenvalues becomes smaller than one half , which may be defined as the two - scale regime of the dynamics , see fig .
[ fro ] .     of the corresponding eigenfunctions describing the car motion relaxation as a function of @xmath206 or the headway @xmath249 when @xmath262 is fixed .
computations in this figure used cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) and @xmath263.[fro],width=302 ]    the change between the two - scale and the one - scale regime corresponds to a value of @xmath2641.5  @xmath62 .
below this value , the dynamical behavior is one - scale , above it is two - scale and will be called `` fast - and - slow '' in the following .    concerning with the `` fast - and - slow '' dynamics the velocity relaxation and the headway relaxation can be analyzed individually . according to exps  ( [ 2.13 ] )
the initial difference @xmath265 contributes mainly to the eigenfunction with the eigenvalue @xmath239 .
thereby , the velocity difference @xmath248 contributes mostly to the amplitude @xmath266 .
the amplitude @xmath267 also contains the term of the same magnitude , however , the time scale @xmath236 on which the corresponding eigenfunction varies is much bigger than the time scale @xmath235 of the other eigenfunction .
so , the velocity relaxation falls on the first eigenfunction .
thus , the velocity difference @xmath248 disappears practically completely during the time @xmath235 , which forms the `` fast '' stage of the car relaxation . at the next `` slow '' stage of duration
@xmath235 the headway deviation from the equilibrium value @xmath249 disappears .
to summarize , the `` fast - and - slow '' car dynamics is a two - stage process where the velocity difference between the cars is eliminated first .
later on , the headway is optimized . while this is being done
, the resulting velocity difference is not essential and the driver can govern the car motion without the necessity of responding fast .    .
[ fol],width=264 ]    another important characteristics , separating dense traffic and quasi - free flow can be derived as follows .
the solution of the eigenvalue equation  ( [ 2.800 ] ) depend actually on two values , @xmath268 and @xmath206 , since @xmath216 for the cost functional  ( [ 1.7 ] ) .
the parameter @xmath269 by virtue of the adopted assumption  ( [ 2.sigma ] ) .
the maximum of @xmath206 attained at @xmath270 is much larger than @xmath271 as it results from exp .
( [ 2.omegamax ] ) .
however , as the headway distance increases the value @xmath254 decreases as @xmath272 ( see exp .
( [ 2.omega ] ) ) whereas @xmath273 .
so there is a value @xmath274 of the headway distance at which both these terms contribute to the eigenvalues to the same extent . to find @xmath274 consider @xmath275 where @xmath276 and @xmath277 , thereby , @xmath278 and @xmath279 by virtue of formula  ( [ 2.804 ] )
so , @xmath274 is specified by @xmath280 the value @xmath274 divides the headway distance region into two parts , see fig .
[ fol ] . when @xmath281 the velocity of the following car is close to @xmath79 , so this type of car motion will be referred to as the quasi - free flow . in this case the eigenvalue equation  ( [ 2.800 ] ) can not be simplified , so to describe the quasi - free flow the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) only in its full form may be used . in the opposite case , @xmath282 , which will be called dense traffic mode , the term @xmath268 is ignorable , reducing the eigenvalue equation  ( [ 2.800 ] ) to @xmath283 moreover , in the latter case the description of car dynamics can be reduced to the standard form of classical mechanics , enabling us to analyze the nonlinear stage of the car dynamics .
in the dense traffic limit @xmath282 , the variational principle based on optimizing the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) can be simplified essentially . in the given limit
the characteristic time scales of the car dynamics are @xmath121 and @xmath284 , with both of them being small in comparison with @xmath285 .
the latter follows from the adopted assumption  ( [ 2.sigma ] ) and the condition @xmath286 for @xmath282 .    in this case , as shown in appendix  [ app : b ] , the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) can be replaced by the following effective functional whose integrand does not contain a time dependent factor @xmath287 where the integrand , which will be called the lagrangian of the car dynamics is given by @xmath288 interestingly , @xmath289 contains the lead car velocity @xmath44 as a parameter and attains its extremal value with respect to @xmath24 at the point @xmath196 corresponding to the optimal driving with the velocity @xmath44 . the term @xmath290 has been introduced for the sake of convenience only , it does not affect the extremal equation but enables the lagrangian to attain a minimum with respect to the car velocity @xmath34 at the stationary point @xmath172 .
both functionals  ( [ 2.7 ] ) and ( [ 10.2 ] ) possess the same extremals to the first order in the small parameter @xmath291 .
in particular , the extremals of functional  ( [ 10.2 ] ) meet the equation @xmath292 it corresponds directly to the initial full equation  ( [ 2.9 ] ) where the second and third terms in the former parentheses are ignored whereas the second term in the latter parentheses is replaced by its value taken at the stationary point .
it is justified because these terms are due to variations of the time dependent cofactor .
keeping in mind its following applications we rewrite lagrangian @xmath289 also in the form @xmath293 in particular , for the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) we get @xmath294 in obtaining formula  ( [ 10.302 ] ) we have taken into account the expression  ( [ 2.12 ] ) relating the velocity @xmath44 to the headway distance @xmath249 , expression  ( [ 2.omega ] ) , and omitted some insignificant terms . the latter term in expression  ( [ 10.301 ] ) can be also omitted because it has no effect on the extremal equation .
the most essential feature of the effective cost functional  ( [ 10.2 ] ) is the absence of a time dependent cofactor .
this enables us to reformulate the car dynamics in terms of autonomous hamiltonian equations .      finding the extremals of functional  ( [ 10.2 ]
) can be done as follows .
the phase space @xmath295 is expanded to @xmath296 by adding the relationship between the headway distance @xmath24 and the car velocity @xmath34 as an additional constraint : @xmath297 and the initial and final conditions , @xmath298 for the sake of simplicity the parameter @xmath44 has been omitted in the list of variables of @xmath299 , the current time is set to zero . by using a lagrange multiplier , the problem  ( [ app.4 ] ) is rewritten in the standard form .
namely , the extremals of @xmath300dt   \label{app.7}\ ] ] are sought .
they are defined on the extended set of variables @xmath301 and subject to conditions  ( [ app.6a ] ) , ( [ app.6b ] ) .
the extremals of functional  ( [ app.7 ] ) obey the classical lagrange equations .    in constructing the hamiltonian @xmath302 that produces the same extremal equations the pontryagin technique
is used @xcite . introducing the new variable @xmath303 @xmath304 and solving for @xmath305 , i.e.
, finding @xmath306 , the desired hamiltonian is written as @xmath307 it can be demonstrated directly that the desired extremals meet the standard hamiltonian system of equations @xmath308    again , the optimization of functional  ( [ app.4 ] ) actually leads to a boundary value problem because the extremal is specified by both the initial and final conditions  ( [ app.6a ] ) , ( [ app.6b ] ) .
the hamiltonian approach  ( [ app.h1])([app.h2 ] ) also shares this property .
namely , the initial values of the variables @xmath24 and @xmath34 are given by conditions  ( [ app.6a ] ) , whereas the initial values @xmath309 and @xmath310 of the quasi - momenta @xmath311 and @xmath303 should be chosen such that the system tend to the stationary point @xmath172 as @xmath312 .
it is the same situation that we met in dealing with equation  ( [ 2.9 ] )    however , the hamiltonian description has a certain advantage .
first , the hamiltonian itself is conserved,@xmath313 second , an additional autonomous first integral of the system  ( [ app.h1 ] ) , ( [ app.h2 ] ) , can be found , at least , for a certain stage of the car dynamics .
fortunately , this is the case for the `` fast - and - slow '' car dynamics analyzed below .
note , that this hamiltonian description of the car motion relaxation towards the stationary state does not contradict the conservation of phase volume being the general property of hamiltonian systems .
the matter is that the relaxation process is described by only _
one _ path leading to the stationary point of the saddle type .
other possible paths are not considered .
the two eqns  ( [ app.h1 ] ) can be understood readily .
the equation for @xmath314 is just @xmath315 , while the equation for @xmath316 , or , what is the same , expression  ( [ app.q ] ) shows that the quasi - momentum @xmath303 is proportional to the car acceleration @xmath317 : @xmath318    the physical meaning of the quasi - momentum @xmath311 is more complex . to clarify it , rewrite the equation line  ( [ app.h2 ] ) in terms of partial derivatives of the lagrangian @xmath319 .
namely , the definitions of the quasi - momentum @xmath303  ( [ app.q ] ) and the hamiltonian  ( [ app.h ] ) enables us to represent these equations as @xmath320 in particular , expressions  ( [ 10.100])([10.102 ] ) immediately lead , as it must , to equation  ( [ 10.0 ] ) .
expression  ( [ 10.101 ] ) demonstrates that the quasi - momentum @xmath311 includes the rate @xmath321 of acceleration variations . in this way
the variable @xmath321 implicitly enters the hamiltonian @xmath302 specifying a hyper - surface in the four - dimensional phase space @xmath322 .
even more , by ignoring the dependence of @xmath319 on the headway distance @xmath24 , the velocity relaxation towards the stationary value @xmath44 is governed by the equation @xmath323 it results from the effective cost functional  ( [ 10.2 ] ) where the car velocity @xmath34 is treated as a primary argument . as will be seen below ,
there is a stage of the car dynamics where this assumption is justified and the quasi - momentum @xmath324 is conserved .
only the dependence of the lagrangian @xmath319 on the headway distance @xmath24 , see eq .
( [ 10.102 ] ) , causes variations in the quasi - momentum @xmath311 .
since the velocity control is of primary importance in the driving strategy , the variable @xmath311 can be regarded as a certain measure of the necessity to control also the headway distance when eliminating the velocity difference .
for @xmath325 the last term on the right - hand side of exp .
( [ 10.3b ] ) is small .
since the headway @xmath24 enters the hamiltonian  ( [ app.h ] ) exactly via this term time variations in the quasi - momentum @xmath311 are retarded by virtue of the first equation at line  ( [ app.h2 ] ) .
the same follows from eq .
( [ 10.102 ] ) .
the other variables @xmath24 , @xmath34 , @xmath303 can vary substantially on scales independent of the value @xmath325 .
then , the car dynamics can exhibit multi - scale relaxation .
in particular , sec .  [
sec : tcmd ] demonstrated this fact , namely , it has been shown that in the given limit the system dynamics comprises the fast and slow stages .
exactly the time scale of the latter stages depends on the value @xmath326 . during the former stage
the quasi - momentum @xmath311 should be practically constant , i.e. , it is approximately a first integral of the system  ( [ app.h1 ] ) , ( [ app.h2 ] ) .
this property , together with the conservation of hamiltonian  ( [ app.h ] ) , allows the integration of the system of equations  ( [ app.h1 ] ) , ( [ app.h2 ] ) . during the following slow stage
a quasi - stationary approximation can be used to analyze the system evolution .
the results below are exemplified with the cost function  ( [ 1.7 ] ) .
they can be easily generalized to other cost functions .      at the zeroth approximation in the small parameter
@xmath206 the quasi - momentum @xmath311 is a constant . during the fast stage mainly the velocity deference @xmath248 is eliminated , so eq .  (
[ 10.101 ] ) formally describes the relaxation process of the car velocity @xmath34 to the stationary value @xmath44 .
therefore , by virtue of exp .
( [ 10.301 ] ) , the quasi - momentum @xmath311 takes zero value , @xmath327 . in this limit
the lagrangian component @xmath328 as well as the additive constant of the component @xmath329 can be omitted .
so , the hamiltonian  ( [ app.h ] ) becomes @xmath330 and the non - canonical variables @xmath295 are used .    since the hamiltonian @xmath331 is conserved and the fast stage describes the velocity relaxation to @xmath44 the car dynamics obeys the equation
@xmath332 this immediately gives the relationship between the acceleration @xmath115 and the velocity @xmath34 @xmath333 the sign in the latter equation has been chosen so to allow for the system relaxation .
equation  ( [ fs.1 ] ) is , in fact , of the general form and the linear form of eq .
( [ nad12 ] ) is due to the adopted quadratic _
ansatz _ of the cost function but not a consequence of linearization .
besides , equality  ( [ fs.1 ] ) can be read as follows .
the comparison of the hamiltonian parts @xmath334 and @xmath335 with the corresponding components of lagrangian  ( [ 10.3b ] ) demonstrates that the function @xmath334 actually measures the cost of the car acceleration and the function @xmath335 does the same with respect to the car motion relative to the optimal driving conditions .
thereby , during the fast stage the driver corrects the car dynamics so that the cost of acceleration be equal to the cost of current motion measured relative to the stationary conditions .     and
the car velocity @xmath336 where the car dynamics is collisionfree ( based on equation  ( [ nad13])).[fcol ] ]    the headway distance @xmath24 does not enter explicitly the governing equation of the fast stage .
however , it varies during the fast stage and finally attains a value @xmath337 differing from the initial value @xmath338 . in the adopted simple approximation of the cost function eq .
( [ nad12 ] ) enables to estimate easily the value @xmath337 .
namely , the direct integration of eq .
( [ nad12 ] ) yields the relationship @xmath339 applying to formula  ( [ nad1010 ] ) it can be seen that expression  ( [ nad13 ] ) holds until the headway distance @xmath24 becomes too small and it is impossible to ignore the effect of the term @xmath340 , i.e. , when @xmath341{\omega}\ , h_v \ll h_v\,.\ ] ] the car dynamics in the region of small values of the headway distance when the probability of collision is high is worth of an individual consideration .
here we only touch on this problem by assuming the collision to happen when the value @xmath337 given by exp .
( [ nad13 ] ) becomes equal to zero .
this assumption is justified as a rough approximation due to estimate  ( [ nad14 ] ) , see fig .
the boundary of the collisionless region can be shifted to the right substantially by dropping the assumed quadratic dependence of the cost function on acceleration .
this will be done elsewhere .
when the system attains a quasi - equilibrium with respect to the car velocity @xmath34 its further evolution is due to the direct dependence of the hamiltonian @xmath342 on the headway distance @xmath24 .
it enters the hamiltonian via @xmath328 . as a result
, the velocity difference @xmath248 and the acceleration @xmath115 should be small . keeping this in mind , eq .
( [ 10.101 ] ) can be solved for @xmath311 .
substitution of the obtained expression into eq .
( [ 10.102 ] ) , and the further linearization with respect to the variable @xmath248 and the component @xmath343 results in @xmath344 if @xmath345 is the characteristic time scale of the slow stage then @xmath346 these estimates together with eq .
( [ st.1 ] ) lead to @xmath347 in particular , the rate @xmath348 of time variations in the quasi - momentum @xmath303 scales as @xmath349 for @xmath350 .
since the lagrangian @xmath299 has a minimum at @xmath351 the quasi - momentum @xmath311 can be estimated as @xmath352 by virtue of eq .
( [ 10.102 ] ) . in the limit
@xmath325 the term @xmath348 can be ignored in comparison with the quasi - momentum @xmath311 .
then , eq .  ( [ 10.101 ] ) immediately leads to the relation @xmath353 which is no more than the standard expression for the momentum of a system described by the lagrangian @xmath354 with @xmath355 .    by the same reasons
all the terms in hamiltonian  ( [ app.h ] ) containing the quasi - momentum @xmath303 may be omitted .
then the substitution of ( [ st.3 ] ) into ( [ app.h ] ) yields the hamiltonian of the slow stage @xmath356 in the lagrangian component @xmath328 the car velocity @xmath34 has been replaced by its stationary value @xmath44 , and some negligible terms have been omitted .
then the conservation of the hamiltonian @xmath357 during the system dynamics gets the form @xmath358 the conservation law  ( [ st.6 ] ) can be understood in analogy to that for the fast stage . however , during the slow stage of the car dynamics the car velocity plays the role of the control parameter .
the driver changes the speed to correct the headway distance .
again the cost of deviation of the car velocity from the stationary value is chosen to be equal to the cost of the car motion measured relative to the optimal conditions .
it should be pointed out that the slow stage of the car dynamics is governed by the conservation law , exp .
( [ st.6 ] ) , which contains only the headway distance @xmath24 and the velocity @xmath34 . at the first approximation ,
the acceleration @xmath115 does not enter at all . in this meaning ,
the slow stage is similar to other physical systems .
however , the stationary point of the car dynamics is a saddle point rather than a minimum . up to now , the two different stages of car - following discussed already in sec .
[ sec : tcmd ] have been identified with two different conservation laws .
both of them can be unified into just another effective conservation law interpolating exps .
( [ fs.1 ] ) and ( [ st.6 ] ) : @xmath359 within the same accuracy it is possible to interpolate directly eqs .
( [ nad12 ] ) and ( [ st.7 ] ) , leading to @xmath360 .
\label{nad1010}\ ] ]    besides , the proposed interpretations of the conservation laws  ( [ fs.1 ] ) and ( [ st.6 ] ) enable us to formulate a generalized principle of adequate control .
it declares that the effective cost of correcting the car motion via changing the car acceleration ( fast stage ) or the car velocity ( slow stage ) is equal to the cost of the current state of car motion measured with respect to the optimal driving conditions .
a variational approach to the description of car dynamics has been developed in case of a car following a lead car moving at a constant speed . to derive governing equations for the following car motion
the driver preference has been used to construct a cost functional .
its extremals specify the optimal paths of the further motion for the following car . applying to the general properties of the driver behavior we analyzed the basic properties of the cost function and proposed a simple parabolic _ ansatz _ , which , nevertheless , catches typical features of traffic properties .
the concept of a rational driver is formulated .
it comprises the assumptions that the driver follows the optimal paths and corrects the car motion continuously . in this case
the optimal path is a nash equilibrium of the system , which is defined as follows .
if the driver has chosen an optimal path at a certain moment of time then no further correction of the car motion is necessary because it leads to the same result . as the consequence of the nash equilibrium the extremals of the cost functional
specify the real dynamics of cars with rational drivers although originally they determine only the imaginary paths in the driver s mind when planning the further motion . in this way we obtained several results .
the optimal velocity approximation has been derived .
the weight coefficient entering a car following model combining the `` following - the - leader '' model and the optimal velocity model has been found depending on the headway distance . as an important result
it has been shown that the car dynamics can be categorized under different types according to its properties .
first , we have shown that there can be two types of the car relaxation towards the stationary motion , the mono - scale dynamics and the `` fast - and - slow '' dynamics .
second , we singled out the quasi - free motion and the dense traffic mode .
the variational technique for the latter mode can be simplified essentially .
namely , it is possible to reformulate the cost functional so that it does not contain a time dependent cofactor . as a result
, the autonomous hamiltonian description for the car dynamics has been constructed . for the dense traffic mode the `` fast - and - slow '' dynamics has been analyzed for the nonlinear stage .
in particular , different conservation laws for this stages have been found .
a generalized principle of adequate car motion control has been proposed .
we assumed that the lead car moves at a fixed speed .
if it is not the case two different situations should be singled out . for perfect drivers who can predict rigorously the motion of the car ahead the main results still hold .
otherwise the cost function will depend not only on the current time but also , what is crucial , on the time when the driver has started to evaluate the further car dynamics .
this disturbs the nash equilibrium and the car correction should be carried out continuously .
briefly this problem was studied in  @xcite but it actually requires a more detailed investigation .
real drivers have certain limitations .
they are not capable of finding the optimal path precisely and they can not correct the car motion continuously .
so , the concept of rational driver behavior is just the first approximation of the real situation and deviations from this perfect behavior should be analyzed consistently .
a first step towards this problem can be found in ref .
here we justify some assumptions adopted there and substantiated them in a different way .
let us again concern the driver evaluation of the car motion quality .
for a given path of the car s further motion @xmath361 the cost functional  ( [ 2.7 ] ) is written as @xmath362   \,.\end{gathered}\ ] ] expression  ( [ br.1 ] ) can be represented also in the form @xmath363
\nonumber\\      &   + \frac{2v}{\vartheta_{\text{max}}^{2}}(h - h_{v})+\mathcal{l}_{0}\ , ,      \label{br.2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath364 describes the deviation of the given path from the stationary car motion trajectory , @xmath365 here , @xmath366 is the cost of stationary car motion , @xmath367 in addition , when deriving expression  ( [ br.1 ] ) we have used @xmath368 integrated various fragments of eq .
( [ br.1 ] ) by parts , assuming @xmath369 , and dropped terms like @xmath370 where ever possible .
when the driver plan her further motion the current values of the headway @xmath24 and the velocity @xmath34 are regarded as the initial conditions .
so , when choosing the optimal path she can minimize only the first term @xmath371 of expression  ( [ br.2 ] ) .
this optimization is implemented through the adequate control over the car acceleration @xmath115 , so , exactly the acceleration plays the role of the control parameter available for the driver actions .
a real driver can only approximately evaluate the quality of motion .
let us describe the threshold in the driver perception of the motion quality by @xmath372 where @xmath373 is a small constant , @xmath374 , because definitely a driver can recognize the difference in the state of staying and freely motion on an empty road .
when the controllable part @xmath375 of the cost motion is much smaller then the threshold  ( [ br.4 ] ) the driver actually has no information of how to govern the car motion . in this case
it is natural to assume that he will not do anything with respect to the car driving and , so , will fix the car motion at the current state , including the current acceleration @xmath115 . thereby the inequality @xmath376 determine the region in the phase space @xmath295 inside which the driver can not control the car motion . in evaluating such a driver behavior with expression  ( [ br.2 ] ) we can formally treat @xmath377 , @xmath378 , and @xmath379 as constants independent of one another . so setting @xmath380 , @xmath381 , and @xmath382 and taking into account the relation between @xmath196 and @xmath44 we get from condition  ( [ br.5 ] ) the approximate boundary of this region in the following form @xmath383 we recall that the parameter @xmath214 entering eq .
( [ lge ] ) coincides with @xmath384 .
so we reproduced here the expression for the rational driving boundary as has been introduced in paper  @xcite by a different line of reasonings .
these investigations were supported in part by rfbr grants  01 - 01 - 00389 , 00439 , ur grant  01.03.005/2 , intas grant  00 - 0847 , and russian program `` integration '' project  b0056 , during a stay of one of the authors ( il ) at the institute for transport research of the german aerospace centre .
a set @xmath385 of one - dimensional paths @xmath386 of car motion is considered .
all the paths are supposed to originate from one point @xmath387 at the initial time @xmath388 , i.e. @xmath389 , and to go to infinity , @xmath390 , as @xmath312 such that the car velocity @xmath391 is bounded during the motion , @xmath392 ( here @xmath62 is some constant ) .
it is assumed that the set @xmath385 is ordered by a certain preference relation @xmath393 and there is a functional @xmath394 of the form @xmath395 measuring numerically the preference relation , i.e. meeting the condition @xmath396 here , first , the integrand @xmath397 depends on the car position on the road @xmath398 , the velocity @xmath45 , and , may be , the current moment @xmath0 of time .
it plays the role of cost function , i.e. evaluates the quality of the car motion state at current time .
second , the weight factor takes one of the forms @xmath399 where @xmath400 and @xmath401 as @xmath402 or @xmath403 . the functions @xmath404 and @xmath405 describe the spatial or temporal limitations in the driver prediction , respectively .
the examples @xmath406 where @xmath407 and @xmath44 are some constants , enable us to relate the cost functional  ( [ appp1 ] ) to ones used in the main text . the specific form of @xmath404 and @xmath405
, however , does not affect the results to be obtained in this appendix .
let @xmath408 be another cost functional of form  ( [ appp1 ] ) with its own integrand @xmath409 that also describes the same preference relation .
the purpose of the present appendix is to derive the relationship between the cost functions @xmath397 and @xmath409 .    for this purpose the path set @xmath385
is divided into classes @xmath410 of equivalent paths , i.e. @xmath411 if @xmath412 or , what is the same , @xmath413 .
the cost functional @xmath414 based on the integrand @xmath409 has to preserve this class partition .
so the condition @xmath415 must hold for any infinitesimal perturbation @xmath416 of a path @xmath398 within the class @xmath417 $ ] . using the lagrange multiplier technique and taking into account the initial condition @xmath418 ( thus , @xmath419 ) the latter requirement is reduced to the equation @xmath420 where the function @xmath421 and @xmath422 is a certain constant for all the points @xmath423 on the phase plane @xmath424 related by the given curve @xmath398 .
let us show that the value of @xmath425 is constant for _ all _ the points of the phase plane .
the cost functions @xmath409 , @xmath397 are chosen , thereby , if the _ quasi - local _ equation  ( [ appp4 ] ) holds , the value of @xmath426 must be determined by any fragment of the path @xmath398 under consideration , for example , by a fragment @xmath427 . for @xmath428 and @xmath429
any point @xmath430 can be joined to the fragment @xmath431 by a certain path @xmath432 which must be characterized by the same value of @xmath425 .
the latter proves this statement because the time moments @xmath433 have been taken arbitrary .
the cost function @xmath397 ( as well as @xmath409 ) and the weight factor @xmath434 describe different effects of the car driving , so they are not related to each other .
thus the terms of eq .
( [ appp4 ] ) containing @xmath435 , @xmath436 , or @xmath437 should be equal to zero individually .
thereby @xmath438 and    @xmath439    the solutions of system ( [ appp5 ] ) , ( [ appp6a ] ) and system ( [ appp5 ] ) , ( [ appp6b ] ) have the forms @xmath440 respectively , where @xmath441 and @xmath442 are arbitrary functions of @xmath140 and @xmath0 .
thereby the desired relationship of the cost functions @xmath397 , @xmath409 is given for @xmath443 by the expression    @xmath444    where the constant @xmath445 must be positive , @xmath446 .
formulae ( [ appp7a ] ) and ( [ appp7b ] ) specify the admissible family of cost functions entering cost functional  ( [ appp1 ] ) that preserve the preference relation . as seen directly ,
integral  ( [ appp1 ] ) with the integrands @xmath441 and @xmath442 is independent of a particular form of the path @xmath398 .
so the transformations  ( [ appp7a ] ) and ( [ appp7b ] ) correspond to the linear transformation of the cost functional .
the problem of finding the extremals of the functional @xmath447 defined on a set of paths @xmath448 is considered . here , first , the integrand @xmath449 is a given function of the headway distance @xmath24 , the current velocity @xmath450 , and the acceleration @xmath451 .
second , the weight factor @xmath452 is a function of time @xmath0 confined within some time interval @xmath453 , i.e. , @xmath454 , @xmath455 for @xmath456 , and @xmath457 sufficiently fast as @xmath403 .
so , @xmath458 can be adopted without lost of generality .
third , the trial paths @xmath182 meet the initial conditions @xmath459 and do not diverge as time goes on , i.e. , there is a number @xmath460 so that @xmath461    the properties of the functional extremals have been studied already . keeping in mind the results in sec@xmath462[sec:2 ] , a special case is analyzed in the following .
let @xmath463 be the characteristic time scale of the velocity relaxation to the stationary value @xmath44 .
in particular , the values of @xmath463 are estimated by the eigenvalues of the corresponding extremal equation linearized near the stationary point .
the case @xmath464 is considered here to show how the functional  ( [ appb.1 ] ) can be rewritten to eliminate the time dependent factor @xmath465 . in this way
the problem of finding the extremals gets the classical form met in theoretical mechanics .
the stationary point @xmath466 is determined by the properties of both the function @xmath449 and the factor @xmath465 ( see exp .
( [ 2.11 ] ) ) . as a result , at the stationary point
( see again exp .
( [ 2.11 ] ) ) @xmath467 the derivative @xmath468 does not contain factors similar to @xmath469 .
so , @xmath465 can not be omitted directly . as a first step
the function @xmath449 is replaced by the difference @xmath470 .
this does not affect the extremals .
the difference @xmath471 as a function of @xmath0 is practically confined within a time interval @xmath472 whose upper boundary @xmath473 and , so , @xmath474 . therefore , at the next step expression  ( [ appb.1 ] ) is rewritten as @xmath475 which is justified to the first order in the small parameter @xmath476 by virtue of expressions  ( [ appb.4 ] ) and the fact that the second term in exp .
( [ appb.5 ] ) plays a substantial role only when the path @xmath46 tends to the stationary point . here
the symbol @xmath477 means that functional  ( [ appb.5 ] ) possesses the same collection of the extremals as the initial functional @xmath478 within the adopted accuracy and the time dependent factor @xmath465 has been approximated by @xmath479 formula  ( [ appb.6 ] ) can be regarded actually as the definition of the time scale @xmath480 ^{-1}$ ] .
taking into account the relation @xmath481 and integrating the second term in exp .
( [ appb.5 ] ) by parts yields @xmath482 omitting the constant components of the integrand which does not affect the extremals the required result follows @xmath483 minimization of functional  ( [ appb.8 ] ) gives the desired extremals and integral  ( [ appb.8 ] ) does not contain a time dependent factor .
the function @xmath484 can be regarded as a lagrangian of the car dynamics .
r.  wiedemann , simulation des straenverkehrsflues , ph.d .- thesis , heft 8 der schriftenreihe des ifv , karlsruhe , in german ( 1974 ) , c.  l.  barrett , m.  wolinsky , and m.  w.  olesen , in : _ proceedings of international workshop of traffic and granular flow _ ,
editors d.  e.  wolf , m.  schreckenberg , and a.  bachem ( world scientific , singapore , 1996 ) , p.  169 .