MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047034108 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670380105

Automated transit headway control <i>via</i> adaptive signal priority

2004· article· en· W2047034108 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kenny Ling, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadwayIntersection (aeronautics)Transit (satellite)SIGNAL (programming language)Bus priorityComputer scienceIntelligent transportation systemReal-time computingTraffic simulationReinforcement learningPublic transportTask (project management)Signal timingControl (management)SimulationEngineeringTransport engineeringTraffic signalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reports on a study that developed a next‐generation Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategy, Adaptive TSP, that controls adaptively transit operations of high frequency routes using traffic signals, thus automating the operations control task and relieving transit agencies of this burden. The underlying algorithm is based on Reinforcement Learning (RL), an emerging Artificial Intelligence method. The developed RL agent is responsible for determining the best duration of each signal phase such that transit vehicles can recover to the scheduled headway taking into consideration practical phase length constraints. A case study was carried out by employing the microscopic traffic simulation software Paramics to simulate transit and traffic operations at one signalized intersection along the King Streetcar route in downtown Toronto. The results show that the control policy learned by the agent could effectively reduce the transit headway deviation and causes smaller disruption to cross street traffic compared with the existing unconditional transit signal priority algorithm.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207