Integrated optimization of bus priority operations in connected vehicle environment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Most previous works associated with transit signal priority merely focus on the optimization of signal timings, ignoring both bus speed and dwell time at bus stops. This paper presents a novel approach to optimize the holding time at bus stops, signal timings, and bus speed to provide priority to buses at isolated intersections. The objective of the proposed model is to minimize the weighted average vehicle delays of the intersection, which includes both bus delay and impact on nearby intersection traffic, ensuring that buses clear these intersections without being stopped by a red light. A set of formulations are developed to explicitly capture the interaction between bus speed, bus holding time, and transit priority signal timings. Experimental analysis is used to show that the proposed model has minimal negative impacts on general traffic and outperforms the no priority, signal priority only, and signal priority with holding control strategies (no bus speed adjustment) in terms of reducing average bus delays and stops. A sensitivity analysis further demonstrates the potential of the proposed approach to be applied to bus priority control systems in real‐time under different traffic demands, bus stop locations, and maximum speed limits. 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.
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 it