Field implementation feasibility study of cumulative travel‐time responsive (CTR) traffic signal control algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The cumulative travel‐time responsive (CTR) algorithm determines optimal green split for the next time interval by identifying the maximum cumulative travel time (CTT) estimated under the connected vehicle environment. This paper enhanced the CTR algorithm and evaluated its performance to verify a feasibility of field implementation in a near future. Standard Kalman filter (SKF) and adaptive Kalman filter (AKF) were applied to estimate CTT for each phase in the CTR algorithm. In addition, traffic demand, market penetration rate (MPR), and data availability were considered to evaluate the CTR algorithm's performance. An intersection in the Northern Virginia connected vehicle test bed is selected for a case study and evaluated within vissim and hardware in the loop simulations. As expected, the CTR algorithm's performance depends on MPR because the information collected from connected vehicle is a key enabling factor of the CTR algorithm. However, this paper found that the MPR requirement of the CTR algorithm could be addressed (i) when the data are collected from both connected vehicle and the infrastructure sensors and (ii) when the AKF is adopted. The minimum required MPRs to outperform the actuated traffic signal control were empirically found for each prediction technique (i.e., 30% for the SKF and 20% for the AKF) and data availability. Even without the infrastructure sensors, the CTR algorithm could be implemented at an intersection with high traffic demand and 50–60% MPR. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to the field implementation of the CTR algorithm to improve the traffic network performance. Copyright © 2017 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".