MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220827780 · doi:10.1155/2022/3305400

Optimization of Traffic Congestion Management in Smart Cities under Bidirectional Long and Short-Term Memory Model

2022· article· en· W4220827780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yujia Zhai, Yan Wan, Xiaoxiao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMacau University of Science and TechnologyMacau University of Science and Technology Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceTraffic flow (computer networking)Term (time)Approximation errorLong short term memoryTraffic congestionAlgorithmData miningArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceEngineeringRecurrent neural networkTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To solve the increasingly serious traffic congestion and reduce traffic pressure, the bidirectional long and short-term memory (BiLSTM) algorithm is adopted to the traffic flow prediction. Firstly, a BiLSTM-based urban road short-term traffic state algorithm network is established based on the collected road traffic flow data, and then the internal memory unit structure of the network is optimized. After training and optimization, it becomes a high-quality prediction model. Then, the experimental simulation verification and prediction performance evaluation are performed. Finally, the data predicted by the BiLSTM algorithm model are compared with the actual data and the data predicted by the long short-term memory (LSTM) algorithm model. Simulation comparison shows that the prediction results of LSTM and BiLSTM are consistent with the actual traffic flow trend, but the data of LSTM deviate greatly from the real situation, and the error is more serious during peak periods. BiLSTM is in good agreement with the real situation during the stationary period and the low peak period, and it is slightly different from the real situation during the peak period, but it can still be used as a reference. In general, the prediction accuracy of the BiLSTM algorithm for traffic flow is relatively high. The comparison of evaluation indicators shows that the coefficient of determination value of BiLSTM is 0.795746 greater than that of LSTM (0.778742), indicating that BiLSTM shows a higher degree of fitting than the LSTM algorithm, that is, the prediction of BiLSTM is more accurate. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) value of BiLSTM is 9.718624%, which is less than 9.722147% of LSTM, indicating that the trend predicted by the BiLSTM is more consistent with the actual trend than that of LSTM. The mean absolute error (MAE) value of BiLSTM (105.087415) is smaller than that of LSTM (106.156847), indicating that its actual prediction error is smaller than LSTM. Generally speaking, BiLSTM shows advantages in traffic flow prediction over LSTM. Results of this study play a reliable reference role in the dynamic control, monitoring, and guidance of urban traffic, and congestion management.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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