MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562396680 · doi:10.1002/atr.1229

Spectral and time‐frequency analyses of freeway traffic flow

2013· article· en· W1562396680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAutocorrelationSpectral densityOccupancyTraffic flow (computer networking)Power lawNarrowbandWhite noisePhysicsStatistical physicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper uses spectral and time‐frequency analyses to treat three macroscopic traffic characteristics, namely, time mean speed, volume and occupancy as stochastic processes. Spectral and time‐frequency analyses are performed to characterize power spectral density (PSD), cross‐PSD, autocorrelation and cross‐correlation of these characteristics using TransGuide traffic data collected from four different freeways. It is found that low‐frequency components dominate the PSDs of speed, volume and occupancy at all times. The magnitude of PSDs decreases dramatically as frequency increases and remains almost at a constant level in high‐frequency regimes. A power law is found to exist, which describes the relationship between the frequency and the PSD of traffic characteristics. It is also found that speed can be properly modeled by a narrowband low‐pass stochastic process in a low‐frequency regime and by a nonzero mean white noise in a high‐frequency regime. Strong periodicities and synchronization are both shown in traffic flow. A variety of frequencies can be excited by congestion, and there is no dominant frequency found in stop‐and‐go traffic. Copyright © 2013 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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207