MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275822124 · doi:10.1002/atr.1396

Microscopic decision model for pedestrian route choice at signalized crosswalks

2016· article· en· W2275822124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siqi Xie, S.C. Wong, William H. K. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianTransport engineeringComputer scienceDecision modelEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this paper, two‐tier mathematical models were developed to simulate the microscopic pedestrian decision‐making process of route choice at signalized crosswalks. In the first tier, a discrete choice model was proposed to predict the choices of walking direction. In the second tier, an exponential model was calibrated to determine the step size in the chosen direction. First, a utility function was defined in the first‐tier model to describe the change of utility in response to deviation from a pedestrian's target direction and the conflicting effects of neighboring pedestrians. A mixed logit model was adopted to estimate the effects of the explanatory variables on the pedestrians' decisions. Compared with the standard multinomial logit model, it was shown that the mixed logit model could accommodate the heterogeneity. The repeated observations for each pedestrian were grouped as panel data to ensure that the parameters remained constant for individual pedestrians but varied among the pedestrians. The mixed logit model with panel data was found to effectively address inter‐pedestrian heterogeneity and resulted in a better fit than the standard multinomial logit model. Second, an exponential model in the second tier was proposed to further determine the step size of individual pedestrians in the chosen direction; it indicates the change in walking speed in response to the presence of other pedestrians. Finally, validation was conducted on an independent set of observation data in Hong Kong. The pedestrians' routes and destinations were predicted with the two‐tier models. Compared with the tracked trajectories, the average error between the predicted destinations and the observed destinations was within an acceptable margin. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207