MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210676626 · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.0000659

Adaptive Pushbutton Control for Signalized Pedestrian Midblock Crossings

2022· article· en· W4210676626 on OpenAlexaff
Fan Wu, Huiyu Chen, Kaizhe Hou, Zhanhong Cheng, Tony Z. Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianPedestrian crossingComputer scienceIntersection (aeronautics)Transport engineeringSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pushbutton control is ideal for midblock crossings with low pedestrian and vehicle demand, but it causes significant interruptions to traffic flow with frequent pedestrian crossing requests. Therefore, we propose an adaptive midblock crossing control (AMCC) that minimizes the impact of the pushbutton on traffic flow while maintaining a reasonably short pedestrian wait time (PWT). We regard the midblock crossing and two adjacent intersections as an integrated system and propose two types of AMCCs—AMCC-band and AMCC-vehicle—based on different types of real-time information. AMCC-band seeks the best PWT at the midblock crossing to minimize the green band loss with downstream intersections using the signal control status of adjacent intersections. Alternatively, AMCC-vehicle leverages real-time vehicle location information [e.g., obtained from vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, connected vehicles (CVs), or advanced sensors] to minimize the estimated number of affected vehicles. Our study tests AMCC in the software Simulation of Urban MObility (SUMO) with a two-intersection traffic network. Results show that using AMCC at a midblock crossing significantly reduces vehicle delay under a wide range of traffic conditions compared to using a fixed phase and timing (Fixed) control or a pedestrian light-controlled (Pelican) crossing. The average pedestrian delay of AMCC is slightly above Pelican but much lower than Fixed. In addition, the two types of AMCCs work equally well in reducing vehicle delay, but the AMCC-vehicle has a considerably lower pedestrian delay. The results demonstrate the advantages of AMCC in reducing vehicle and pedestrian delay and vehicle stops, improving traffic efficiency at the arterial. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis shows that the AMCC approach is adaptive to a broad range of traffic demands. Our method extends the application scope of common pushbutton control methods. We conclude that AMCC contributes to a more traffic-efficient, more pedestrian-friendly, and safer transportation system.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A SystemsSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207