Adaptive traffic control system: Control strategy, prediction, resolution, and accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in traffic control methods have led to flexible control strategies for use in an adaptive traffic control system (ATCS). ATCS aims at controlling the imminent traffic, which is yet to arrive and hence not known perfectly. Therefore, volume prediction is an essential part. Associated with the prediction are two aspects: resolution and accuracy. Recent studies indicate a tradeoff between prediction resolution and accuracy: finer resolutions, larger errors. It is imperative to study the relationship and tradeoff between the control strategy, prediction resolution, and its associated error, which are crucial to the development of ATCS. This study investigates this relationship through an extensive simulation of scenarios in Hong Kong with a recently developed dynamic traffic control model, DISCO. Based on the Hong Kong scenarios conducted with DISCO, the major findings include: (i) the importance of resolution outweighs that of error; (ii) dynamic timing plans generally outperform time‐invariant timing plans; (iii) up to a certain extent, overestimated predictions lead to better results than underestimated predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".