Deep Learning vs. Discrete Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
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
The population in cities and demand for transportation continuously increases. Space, financial and environmental constraints do not allow for significant infrastructure expansion. Therefore, optimizing the efficiency of the infrastructure is becoming increasingly important. Wait time at traffic lights is a significant proportion of time spent travelling within cities. Time inefficiency of traffic lights is, therefore, a global concern. Adaptive traffic signal controllers aim to provide demand-responsive strategies to minimize motorists' delay and achieve higher throughputs at signalized intersections. With the advent of new sensory technologies and more intelligent control methods, we propose an adaptive traffic signal controller able to receive un-prepossessed high-dimensional sensory information and self-learn to minimize the intersection delay. We use (1) deep neural networks to operate directly on detailed sensory inputs and feed it into (2) a continuous reinforcement learning based optimal control agent. The integration of the two is known as deep reinforcement learning or deep learning for short. Using deep learning, we achieve two goals: (1) eliminate the need for handcrafting a feature extraction process such as determining queue lengths for instance, which is challenging and location specific, and (2) achieve better performance and faster training time compared to conventional discrete reinforcement learning approaches.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it