MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W104221572 · doi:10.3141/2487-06

Real-Time Estimation of Saturation flow Rates for Dynamic Traffic Signal Control using Connected-Vehicle Data

2015· article· en· W104221572 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Bagheri, Babak Mehran, Bruce Hellinga

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction loopQueueReal-time computingComputer scienceSoftware deploymentMicrosimulationDetectorSimulationEngineeringTransport engineeringTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing adaptive traffic signal control (ATSC) systems rely on dedicated fixed-point sensors, such as inductive loop detectors or video cameras, for measuring traffic demands and discharge saturation flow rates. The cost associated with installation, operation, and maintenance of these sensors is one of the factors that limit the deployment of ATSCs. The emergence of connected vehicles (CVs), which continuously broadcast their speed, position, heading, and other information to other vehicles and to roadside infrastructure, provides an opportunity to reduce the reliance of ATSC on data from fixed sensors and potentially to reduce ATSC deployment costs. However, so that existing ATSC systems can operate by using CV data, a methodology is needed for estimating demands and saturation flow rate based on CV data instead of fixed sensor data. This paper focuses on estimating the time-varying saturation flow rate for individual lane groups at signalized intersections solely on the basis of CV data. The accuracy of a proposed methodology is quantified through microsimulation for a range of traffic conditions, lane group configurations, and levels of market penetration (LMP) of CVs. The analysis shows that the proposed methodology can capture temporal variations in the saturation flow rate caused by road incidents, queues spilling back from downstream bottlenecks, and lane closures. The evaluation results show that the mean absolute relative error of the lane group saturation flow rate ranged from approximately 2% to 9% when LMP = 20% and only 1% to 2% when LMP = 100%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207