MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184499923 · doi:10.1155/2021/9993860

An Online Map Matching Algorithm Based on Second-Order Hidden Markov Model

2021· article· en· W3184499923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiao Fu, Jiaxu Zhang, Yue Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational ResearchNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaSoutheast UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMap matchingComputer scienceHidden Markov modelViterbi algorithmTrajectoryMatching (statistics)AlgorithmSliding window protocolMarkov modelData miningMarkov processKey (lock)Markov chainArtificial intelligenceWindow (computing)Machine learningGlobal Positioning SystemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Map matching is a key preprocess of trajectory data which recently have become a major data source for various transport applications and location-based services. In this paper, an online map matching algorithm based on the second-order hidden Markov model (HMM) is proposed for processing trajectory data in complex urban road networks such as parallel road segments and various road intersections. Several factors such as driver’s travel preference, network topology, road level, and vehicle heading are well considered. An extended Viterbi algorithm and a self-adaptive sliding window mechanism are adopted to solve the map matching problem efficiently. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, a case study is carried out using a massive taxi trajectory dataset in Nanjing, China. Case study results show that the accuracy of the proposed algorithm outperforms the baseline algorithm built on the first-order HMM in various testing experiments.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207