MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820292428 · doi:10.1002/atr.1199

Dynamic process models of combined traffic assignment and control with different signal updating strategies

2012· article· en· W1820292428 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claudio Meneguzzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)Representation (politics)Computer scienceConvergence (economics)Process (computing)Traffic flow (computer networking)Control theory (sociology)Signal timingMathematical optimizationFlow networkControl (management)Operations researchSimulationEngineeringMathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Dynamic process (DP) models of route choice provide a sensible representation of the day‐to‐day evolution of network flows, but their application to the combined modeling of traffic assignment and signal control is not well documented in the literature. In this study, two alternative deterministic, discrete‐time DP models of the interaction between signal control and route choice are proposed and compared with the conventional iterative optimization and assignment (IOA) method for network traffic signal setting. Convergence and equilibrium properties of the two DP models and of IOA are assessed on the basis of extensive numerical tests conducted on a small but realistic network. The frequency of signal resetting is shown to affect significantly the duration of the dynamic process needed to achieve a network flow‐control equilibrium. Our findings also suggest that the realism of IOA may be questioned because of its lack of consideration for important behavioral features such as driver memory and habit. Finally, the possible emergence of instabilities in the DP models is demonstrated through the analysis of bifurcation examples. Copyright © 2012 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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207