Application of locally weighted regression‐based approach in correcting erroneous individual vehicle speed data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Because of the quality of raw data being an essential feature in determining the reliability of traffic information, an effective detection and correction of outliers in raw field‐collected traffic data has been an interest for many researchers. Global positioning systems (GPS)‐based traffic surveillance systems are capable of producing individual vehicle speeds that are vital for transportation researchers and practitioners in traffic management and information strategies. This study proposes a locally weighted regression (LWR)‐based filtering method for individual vehicle speed data. To fully and systematically evaluate this proposed method, a technique to generate synthetic outliers and two approaches to inject synthetic outliers are presented. Parameters that affect the smoothing performance associated with LWR are devised and applied to obtain a more robust and reliable data correction method. For a comprehensive performance evaluation of the developed LWR method, comparisons to exponential smoothing (ES) and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) methods were conducted. Because the LWR‐based filtering method outperformed both the ES and ARIMA methods, this study showed its useful benefits in filtering individual vehicle speed data. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".