MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091905184 · doi:10.1109/infocom.2014.6848139

CityDrive: A map-generating and speed-optimizing driving system

2014· article· en· W2091905184 on OpenAlexaff
Yiran Zhao, Yang Zhang, Tuo Yu, Tianyuan Liu, Xinbing Wang, Xiaohua Tian, Xue Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemScheduleReal-time computingCruise controlSoftware deploymentTraffic flow (computer networking)Floating car dataSIGNAL (programming language)Energy consumptionRoad mapTransport engineeringControl (management)Computer networkTelecommunicationsTraffic congestionEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been many traffic light control systems around the globe, but the high cost of infrastructure and maintenance hinders their wide deployment. However, speed-advisory systems enabled by on-vehicle devices are much cheaper and easier to deploy. The first challenge of such systems is to get the traffic signal schedule in complex intersections. The second challenge is to get map information and calculate the distance. Facing these challenges we devise and implement a speed-advisory driving system called CityDrive, which harnesses the sensor and GPS data from a wide participation of smartphones to suggest proper speed for drivers so that they arrive at intersections in green phase. CityDrive first generates a road map and then infers traffic signal schedules, using only smartphones and a server. CityDrive does not eliminate stops at intersections, but it tries to maximize the probability that vehicles cruise through intersections in green phase. Both simulation and real test show that this continuous speed advisory service effectively smoothes traffic flow and significantly reduces energy consumption.

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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207