A Comparative Study on Drivers’ Stop/Go Behavior at Signalized Intersections Based on Decision Tree Classification Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stop/go decisions at signalized intersections are closely related to driving speed during signal change intervals. The speed during stop/go decision-making has a significant influence on the dilemma area, resulting in changes of stop/go decisions and high complexity of the decision-making process. Considering that traffic delays and vehicle exhaust pollution are mainly caused by queuing at intersections, the stop-line passing speed during the signal change interval will affect both vehicle operation safety and the atmospheric environment. This paper presents a comparative study on drivers’ stop/go behaviors when facing a transition signal period consisting of 3 s green flashing light (FG) and 3 s yellow light (Y) at rural high-speed intersections and urban intersections. For this study, 1,459 high-quality vehicle trajectories of five intersections in Shanghai during the transition signal period were collected. Of these five intersections, three are high-speed intersections with a speed limit of 80 km/h, and the other two are urban intersections with a speed limit of 50 km/h. Trajectory data of these vehicle samples were statistically analyzed to investigate the general characteristics of potential influencing factors, including the instantaneous speed and the distance to the intersection at the start of FG, the vehicle type, and so on. Decision Tree Classification (DTC) models are developed to reveal the relationship between the drivers’ stop/go decisions and these possible influencing factors. The results indicate that the instantaneous speed of FG onset, the distance to the intersection at the start of FG, and the vehicle type are the most important predictors for both types of intersections. Besides, a DTC model can offer a simple way of modeling drivers’ stopping decision behavior and produce good results for urban intersections.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".