Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ramp metering (RM) is the most effective dynamic traffic measure in response to growing congestion in urban freeway networks. Among the extensive RM methods available, those based on optimal control theory have shown strong potential in improving freeway performance. However, these algorithms require an accurate traffic model that limits their applicability in practice. Reinforcement learning (RL) provides the tools to achieve optimal RM control without reliance on any traffic model. In this paper, a guideline for designing RM control systems based on RL is presented by testing different states’ representations, learning methods, action selection, and reward definitions. A microscopic simulation test bed based on a portion of Highway 401 in Toronto, Canada, is developed to evaluate each of the above design parameters and quantify various RM control strategies. A comparison of the reinforcement learning ramp-metering (RLRM) algorithm with a modified version of ALINEA shows the potential of RLRM to improve freeway traffic conditions. When applied to the developed case study, the proposed RLRM algorithm and modified ALINEA reduce the total travel time by 40% and 20%, respectively, compared with the case with no RM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".