Calibration of parameters in microscopic traffic flow simulation models considering micro-meteorological information

Jian Ma; Yuchen Zhang; Liyan Zhang; Zongwei Gao; Keyi Cao; Qianlong Fu; Zheng Qian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326191

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2024
Decision Letter - Zhihong Yao, Editor Dear Dr. Zhang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Zhihong (Arry) Yao, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript. A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Provincial(Y2020LX017). Construction System Project of Jiangsu Provincial,(2020ZD14�; Philosophy and Social Science Projects of Universities in Jiangsu Province(2023STYB1420); Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province(SJCX20_1117, SJCX21_1420, and KYCX21_2999); Social Science Foundation Project of Suzhou(Y2020LX025).” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The paper tried to addresses the problem of how micro-meteorological information can affect the calibration of traffic simulation models to better reflect driver following behavior. The topic is very interesting and I think the manuscript can benefit from the specific comments: 1. The references are really old, please update relevant papers. 2. The formatting of the equations is chaotic. 3. Data used in this paper should be described more clearly�such as the amount of data and the simulation section. 4. It is unclear that whether the authors conducted a field experiment. In conclusion, the authors stated that :"there are still discrepancies in the calibration experiments using real data". However, I did not see any discussion about the real data experiments. Reviewer #2: The manuscript examines the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM) and the Wiedemann99 model, considering the influence of micrometeorological conditions. By incorporating a driver’s judgment factor, λ, the IDM and Wiedemann99 models are improved, leading to the development of new models: I-IDM and I-Wiedemann99. Overall, this manuscript is well-structured and composed in acceptable English. The paper addresses a significant topic that is likely to be of interest to the readership and may be considered for publication following revision. The author should meticulously improve the content of the paper in accordance with the review suggestions. #1. It is recommended to reduce the conclusions in the abstract by incorporating only the most significant result from the proposed model calibration. #2. Introduction part. There is a lack of references to existing related studies. It is challenging to ascertain the novelty of this paper without a comprehensive gap analysis supported by existing related research as background and to define the problem statement. #3. The authors are kindly requested to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology, specifically focusing on the calibration procedures that transform input data into calibration outcomes and subsequent validation. To facilitate better comprehension for the readership, it is suggested that a flowchart be incorporated, illustrating the complete sequence of calibration and validation steps. #4. Figure 15. Quality of Figure 15 need to improve. #5. A comprehensive analysis of the results should be presented, offering a more nuanced interpretation, and demonstrating how the calibration methodology can be integrated into existing practices. #6. Evaluate the policy implications derived from the empirical evidence for China and other nations with analogous transportation systems. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Gen Li Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326191.r001
Revision 1
15 May 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate the reviewers for pointing out all the shortcomings, and we have made revisions in accordance with the journal's requirements. Reviewer #1: The paper tried to addresses the problem of how micro-meteorological information can affect the calibration of traffic simulation models to better reflect driver following behavior. The topic is very interesting and I think the manuscript can benefit from the specific comments: 1.The references are really old, please update relevant papers. Response: Some references have been updated. The references cited in the background section of this paper follow a certain chronological logic. Some of the classical theoretical models were indeed proposed quite some time ago. However, the authors believe that since we have drawn upon the wisdom of previous scholars, it remains necessary to retain these references. 2.The formatting of the equations is chaotic. Response: The formatting of the equations have been updated. Now we use the formula editor built into Word to edit the formula. 3.Data used in this paper should be described more clearly�such as the amount of data and the simulation section. Response: The data in the text, including table data, have been improved again. 4.It is unclear that whether the authors conducted a field experiment. In conclusion, the authors stated that :"there are still discrepancies in the calibration experiments using real data". However, I did not see any discussion about the real data experiments. Response: The experimental data referenced here was provided by local traffic management department, hence it is not convenient to disclose. This paper presents preliminary attempts, and authors plan to further explore this issue in subsequent research. Reviewer #2: The manuscript examines the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM) and the Wiedemann99 model, considering the influence of micrometeorological conditions. By incorporating a driver’s judgment factor, λ, the IDM and Wiedemann99 models are improved, leading to the development of new models: I-IDM and I-Wiedemann99. Overall, this manuscript is well-structured and composed in acceptable English. The paper addresses a significant topic that is likely to be of interest to the readership and may be considered for publication following revision. The author should meticulously improve the content of the paper in accordance with the review suggestions. #1. It is recommended to reduce the conclusions in the abstract by incorporating only the most significant result from the proposed model calibration. Response: The refinement of the abstract has been completed. #2. Introduction part. There is a lack of references to existing related studies. It is challenging to ascertain the novelty of this paper without a comprehensive gap analysis supported by existing related research as background and to define the problem statement. Response: We have added relevant discussions to establish the novelty of this paper. The introduction is divided into two sections—background and literature review—following a chronological logic. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the considerations in car-following model research from 1950 to 2020. #3. The authors are kindly requested to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology, specifically focusing on the calibration procedures that transform input data into calibration outcomes and subsequent validation. To facilitate better comprehension for the readership, it is suggested that a flowchart be incorporated, illustrating the complete sequence of calibration and validation steps. Response: We have added Fig 7. Flowchart of the particle swarm optimization algorithm and Fig 10. Flowchart of the genetic algorithm. #4. Figure 15. Quality of Figure 15 need to improve. Response: After modification, it becomes Fig 16. On the basis of the simulation system operation demonstration, we have incorporated a schematic diagram of the closed-loop simulation scenario. #5. A comprehensive analysis of the results should be presented, offering a more nuanced interpretation, and demonstrating how the calibration methodology can be integrated into existing practices. Response: As shown in the newly added Fig20 , integrating the above achievements into existing practices requires systematic upgrades to data collection, development of automated toolchains, and in-depth collaboration with simulation platforms. #6. Evaluate the policy implications derived from the empirical evidence for China and other nations with analogous transportation systems. Response: These discussions will be elaborated by the authors in their next phase of research, and have currently been incorporated into the review section of the subsequent article to ensure continuity across our series of studies. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326191.r002
Decision Letter - Zhihong Yao, Editor Calibration of parameters in microscopic traffic flow simulation models considering micro-meteorological information PONE-D-24-43241R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Zhihong (Arry) Yao, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thanks for your revision. All the comments have been addressed. The manuscript can be addressed. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326191.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zhihong Yao, Editor PONE-D-24-43241R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Zhihong (Arry) Yao Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326191.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .