Physical Model versus Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Model: A Comparative Study on Modeling Car-Following Behavior at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have simulated traffic behavior at signalized intersections using various Car-Following (CF) models. However, the performance of which CF Model is superior at signalized intersections has not been thoroughly analyzed and evaluated. In this study, two novel Artificial Neural Network (ANN) CF models, the Convolutional Neural Network—Long Short-term Memory (CNN-LSTM) and the Convolution-LSTM (Conv-LSTM)—are first applied to predict CF behaviors at signalized intersections. Both models can extract spatial and temporal information to address the long-term dependency problem more effectively. Based on the filtered NGSIM dataset, we conduct a comparative empirical study of three conventional CF models and five ANN CF models. The dataset is divided into two categories based on the characteristics of CF behavior at signalized intersections: continuous and discontinuous. The experiments demonstrated that ANN CF models outperformed conventional CF models when the output was the velocity in two categories of traffic flow but only failed to do so when the output was acceleration in discontinuous traffic flow. The proposed models were capable of accurately predicting acceleration, but the traffic fluctuations also existed as time passed. Additionally, it was discovered that while the ANN CF model is preferable for traffic flow simulation, the conventional CF model still cannot be ignored for discontinuous traffic flow simulation, particularly when acceleration is required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".