MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787165044 · doi:10.1109/vtcfall.2017.8288364

A Priority Algorithm to Control the Traffic Signal for Emergency Vehicles

2017· article· en· W2787165044 on OpenAlexaff
Md Asaduzzaman, K. Vidyasankar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreemptionEmergency vehicleVisSimIntersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Bus prioritySignal timingReal-time computingTraffic signalTransit (satellite)Control (management)Traffic conflictTransport engineeringAlgorithmPublic transportEngineeringFloating car dataTraffic congestionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Signal preemption disrupts normal traffic signal to allow emergency vehicles to pass through the intersection more safely and quickly. In emergency situations, EVP (Emergency Vehicle Preemption) offers a faster response to the sufferer. Despite this lifesaving advantage, conventional preemption has some problems which need more attention. Increasing delay on overall traffic and failure to prioritize among conflicting preemption requests are two important issues to address. This paper presents a priority signal control algorithm to deal with these issues. We have used TSP (Transit Signal Priority) techniques to improve the EVP system. TSP is a proven strategy to provide a better quality public transit operation in urban areas. Our proposed algorithm adjusts signal phases using TSP techniques to serve an emergency vehicle. These techniques help us to alleviate the impact of EVP on general traffic. Experiments have been conducted using the VISSIM microscopic traffic simulator. Results show that the proposed traffic control algorithm reduces overall traffic delay by up to 8% compared to conventional EVP system.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207