MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194210039 · doi:10.1155/2021/4060740

Highway Traffic Speed Prediction in Rainy Environment Based on APSO-GRU

2021· article· en· W3194210039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dongqing Han, Xin Yang, Guang Li, Shuangyin Wang, Zhen Wang, Jiandong Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsTraffic flow (computer networking)Particle swarm optimizationComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)InertiaSimulationEngineeringAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to accurately analyse the impact of the rainy environment on the characteristics of highway traffic flow, a short-term traffic flow speed prediction model based on gate recurrent unit (GRU) and adaptive nonlinear inertia weight particle swarm optimization (APSO) was proposed. Firstly, the rainfall and highway traffic flow data were cleaned, and then they are matched according to the spatiotemporal relationship. Secondly, through the method of multivariate analysis of variance, the significance of the impact of potential factors on traffic flow speed was explored. Then, a GRU-based traffic flow speed prediction model in rainy environment is proposed, and the actual road sections under different rainfall scenarios were verified. After that, in view of the problem that the prediction accuracy of the GRU model was low in the continuous rainfall scenario, the APSO algorithm was used to optimize the parameters of the GRU network, and the APSO-GRU prediction model was constructed and verifications under the same road section and rain scene were carried out. The results show that the APSO-GRU model has significantly improved prediction stability than the GRU model and can better extract rainfall features during continuous rainfall, with an average prediction accuracy rate of 96.74%.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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