MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foreseeing Congestion using LSTM on Urban Traffic Flow Clusters

2019· article· en· W3009324813 on OpenAlexaff
Ziyue Wang, Parimala Thulasiraman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisTraffic congestionFloating car dataIntelligent transportation systemTraffic flow (computer networking)Traffic congestion reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theoryFocus (optics)Similarity (geometry)Function (biology)Internet of ThingsComputer networkThe InternetData miningReal-time computingTransport engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), is revolutionizing the transportation industry. ITS incorporates advanced Internet of Things (IoT) technologies to implement Smart City. These technologies produce tremendous amount of real time data from diverse sources that can be used to solve transportation problems. In this paper, we focus on one such problem, traffic congestion in urban areas. A road segment affected by traffic affects the surrounding road segments. This is obvious. However, over a period of time, other roads not necessarily close in proximity to the congested road segment may also be affected. The congestion is not stationary. It is dynamic and it spreads. We address this issue by first formulating a similarity function using ideas from network theory. Using this similarity function, we then cluster the road points affected by traffic using affinity propagation clustering, a distributed message passing algorithm. Finally, we predict the effect of traffic on this cluster using long-short term memory neural network model. We evaluate and show the feasibility of our proposed clustering and prediction algorithm during peak and non-peak hours on open source traffic data set.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207