Traffic Delay Estimation Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) at Unsignalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to the modeling of control delays at unsignalized intersection using Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Although, there are several methods for estimation of delay, they lead to different results. A comparative analysis for estimation of the control delay using Malaysian Highway Capacity Manual (MHCM) showed that the theoretical model was not consistent with actual delays observed from sites. Such a finding implies that MHCM's model was not directly capable to the analysis of control delay at unsignalized intersections in Malaysia. Data pertaining to the analysis of control delay was collected from three intersections of various configurations using video camera recording technique. An ANN with two hidden layers and several sizes of neurons in the hidden layers were developed. Two mathematical models for estimation of control delay from minor road with a reasonable accuracy were developed using the outputs from the ANN's model. A statistical analysis revealed that there is good agreement between formulas acquired from the ANN's model and those from the field studies. The results of this research showed that the neural network is able to predict control delay incurred on minor road vehicles at unsignalised intersection more accurately. The analysis revealed that heavy vehicles had the lowest effect on the proposed formulas, where by increasing from 10% to 50%, the values of control delay could increase from 1% to 3%, while the movement flow and conflicting flow had the highest impact, where within the same ranges; control delay could increase until 39%.
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".