Modeling of Merging Decision during Execution Period Based on Random Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the key feature variables and build an accurate decision model for merging behavior during the execution period by using a data-driven method called random forest (RF). To comprehensively explore the feature variables during merging execution period, nineteen candidate variables including speeds, relative speeds, gaps, time-to-collisions (TTCs), and locations are extracted from a dataset including 375 noise-filtered vehicle trajectories. After the variable selection process, an RF model with 9 key feature variables is finally built. Results show that the gap between the merging vehicle and its putative following vehicle and the ration of this gap to the total accepted gap are the two most important feature variables. It is because merging vehicle drivers can easily observe the putative leading vehicles and control the relative speeds and positions to the putative leading vehicles and they tend to leave more space for their putative following vehicles. Relative speed between the merging vehicle and its following vehicle in the auxiliary lane is the only variable related to the vehicles in the auxiliary lane, which means merging vehicles mainly focus on the traffic condition in the adjacent main lane. Evaluation of the performance in comparison with the state-of-the-art method reveals that the proposed method can obtain much more accurate results in both training and testing datasets, which means RF is practical for predicting the merging decision behavior during execution period and has better transferability.
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".