Map Matching for Fixed Sensor Data Based on Utility Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Map matching can provide useful traffic information by aligning the observed trajectories of vehicles with the road network on a digital map. It has an essential role in many advanced intelligent traffic systems (ITSs). Unfortunately, almost all current map-matching approaches were developed for GPS trajectories generated by probe sensors mounted in a few vehicles and cannot deal with the trajectories of massive vehicle samples recorded by fixed sensors, such as camera detectors. In this paper, we propose a novel map-matching model termed Fixed-MM, which is designed specifically for fixed sensor data. Based on two key observations from real-world data, Fixed-MM considers (1) the utility of each path and (2) the travel time constraint to match the trajectories of fixed sensor data to a specific path. Meanwhile, with the laws derived from the distribution of GPS trajectories, a path generation algorithm was developed to search for candidates. The proposed Fixed-MM was examined with field-test data. The experimental results show that Fixed-MM outperforms two types of classical map-matching algorithms regarding accuracy and efficiency when fixed sensor data are used. The proposed Fixed-MM can identify 68.38% of the links correctly, even when the spatial gap between the sensor pair is increased to five kilometers. The average computation time spent by Fixed-MM on one point is only 0.067 s, and we argue that the proposed method can be used online for many real-time ITS applications.
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".