MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221082595 · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2022.103625

Optimal roadside units location for path flow reconstruction in a connected vehicle environment

2022· article· en· W4221082595 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)Transport engineeringFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceTraffic flow (computer networking)EngineeringSimulationMathematicsComputer securityComputer networkGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The path flow reconstruction problem is used to determine the minimum set of links that must be equipped with traffic monitoring devices to identify vehicle paths in a road network. This study addresses the path flow reconstruction problem in a connected vehicles (CVs) environment. Unlike traditional sensors that can observe both CVs and non-connected vehicles (NCVs), CV-enabled infrastructures, known as roadside units (RSUs), can only identify CVs on roads through vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communications. They can, however, provide critical traffic information, including traces of the historical trajectories of CVs and possibly the desired path to a destination, thereby inferring partial information on links that are not directly covered by RSUs. RSUs have an “area” rather than a “point” coverage capability. This allows them to simultaneously monitor more than one link. We mathematically developed four variant formulations for the path flow reconstruction problem to optimally locate either a network’s RSU or a mix of the network’s RSUs and automatic vehicle identification (AVI) sensors. The first two models assume 100% market penetration of CVs and the first model determines the links that should be directly covered by RSUs in a road network. While the desired path to a destination is assumed to be unknown. This model determines an upper bound for the number of RSUs required to fully reconstruct path flows by using each RSU to directly cover a link. To consider the coverage and range of the RSU (where RSU can cover more than one link) and to minimize the total cost, Model II optimizes the locations of traditional AVI sensors and RSUs. This allows the model to capitalize on the RSUs’ area and indirect coverage features to fully reconstruct path flow in a road network. Model III considers the gradual deployment of CVs and thus the prevailing mixed traffic environment consisting of both CVs and NCVs. Accordingly, this model relaxes the assumption of a 100% penetration rate of CVs and maximizes the path flow information gain subject to a budget constraint in a mixed traffic environment. Finally, Model IV explores the infrastructure to infrastructure (I2I) communication capability among RSUs, further maximizing the traffic flow information gain of CVs while guaranteeing full path flow reconstruction. The results suggest that fewer RSUs than AVI sensors are required to reach full path flow reconstruction in a road network. The level of unique path flow information obtained from RSUs is also considerably higher than what can be obtained from AVI sensors. It is demonstrated that, in mixed traffic conditions, the coverage range of RSUs and their cost compared to AVI sensors can significantly affect the deployment of either type of sensing devices for maximized path flow information gain.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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