MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542017305 · doi:10.1109/vnis.1995.518845

Dynamic O-D travel time estimation using an artificial neural network

2002· article· en· W2542017305 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Liping Fu, Laurence R. Rilett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceTravel timePath (computing)Feedforward neural networkTrajectoryShortest path problemArtificial intelligenceEngineeringTransport engineeringGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the minimum O-D (origin-destination) travel time path in a dynamic traffic network can be calculated using standard minimum path algorithms there are a number of transportation applications which require a quick estimate of this information. These applications include such areas as real time vehicle dispatching systems where potential routes between a large number of origins and destinations have to be continually updated for a variety of vehicles throughout the day. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the feasibility of using an artificial neural network (ANN) to estimate the O-D travel time in a dynamic traffic network. Three feedforward neural networks were developed to model the travel time behavior during different time periods of the day: AM peak, PM peak and off peak. These ANN models were subsequently trained and tested using a network from the City of Edmonton, Alberta. A comparison of the ANN model with a traditional statistical model is then presented. Lastly, the computational efficiency of the proposed ANN model compared to two shortest path algorithms is demonstrated. The statistical results show that the ANN models are appropriate for estimating dynamic O-D travel times and are significantly faster than the exact minimum path algorithms.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207