MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522016728 · doi:10.18757/ejtir.2003.3.1.4234

Decision Support in Dynamic Traffic Management

2003· article· en· W1522016728 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Hoogendoorn, Bart De Schutter, Henk Schuurman

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of transport and infrastructure research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOperator (biology)Set (abstract data type)Fuel efficiencyTask (project management)Function (biology)Decision support systemOperations researchControl (management)Similarity (geometry)Fuzzy logicData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To support operators in Regional Traffic Management Centers in their task to efficiently and safely manage traffic flows on the motorway and urban networks, a decision support system is being developed. An essential function of this system is its ability to predict the effects of a large number of candidate control scenarios, given the recurrent and non-recurrent conditions in the network. This article proposes such a prediction system referred to as BSES (Boss Scenario Evaluation System), which can evaluate control scenarios in real time, predicting their effects in terms of various measures of effectiveness, such as total travel times, vehicle loss times, average speeds, fuel consumption, etc. The main characteristics of the system are l) that it is case- based, i.e. it uses either synthetic or real-life examples of the effect of control scenarios under different circumstances; 2) that is determines the similarity of the current situation to different examples in the case-base using fuzzy logic, and 3) that it is agent-based, meaning that it predicts the effects of the different measures for small subnetworks and combines these predictions afterwards. In the article, synthetic data is used to set-up the case base. The test results described in the article illustrate the workings of the system, and shows that the system can provide the operator with real-time predictions. Furthermore, the predictions of the system are in comparable to the predictions from the simulation model used to fill the case-base, showing that the method is applicable to generalize the - in this case synthetic - data it uses.

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)0.005
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of transport and infrastructure researchSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207