MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141035746 · doi:10.3141/1886-04

Using Decision Trees to Improve the Accuracy of Vehicle Signature Reidentification

2004· article· en· W2141035746 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Y. Tawfik, Baher Abdulhai, Aidong Peng, Seyed M. Tabib

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction loopDecision treeSignature (topology)Vehicle tracking systemComputer scienceTree (set theory)DetectorProcess (computing)Tracking (education)Work (physics)Data miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsSegmentationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle reidentification is the process of tracking a vehicle along a highway as it crosses detection stations. Inductive loop detectors are by far the most widely deployed vehicle detectors. In the present work, vehicle reidentification is performed by combining vehicle-specific information (length and electromagnetic signatures) and some contextual information (lane, speed, and time) to form a decision tree. This approach provides a specific decision tree for tracking vehicles along each highway section. After training, the decision tree successfully classified about 95% of the unseen test records—a significant improvement relative to the literature and our own previous work on the same data. This success rate has been consistently obtained from two data sets: one consisting only of passenger vehicles and another consisting of a representative traffic mix.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207