MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225371371 · doi:10.32473/flairs.v35i.130731

Pedestrian Traffic Prediction using Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4225371371 on OpenAlexaff
Riddhi Joshi, Daniel Silver

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePedestrianArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkEvent (particle physics)Traffic flow (computer networking)Deep learningDual (grammatical number)Pedestrian detectionMachine learningEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedestrian traffic information offers useful insights when developing or maintaining a business.This research combines image processing and machine learning methods to predictpedestrian traffic flowrate and density for up to two days into the future, based on weatherdata, calendar data, and special events. To obtain the traffic flowrate and density, we firstdeveloped a neural network model to predict the number of new people and the total numberof people in each sequence of images captured by a Nova Scotia Webcams camera. Thesecounts of people are used to calculate the pedestrian traffic flowrate and density labels forhourly intervals. These labels are then combined with hourly weather data, calendar data,and special event data from the same period to train a recurrent neural network to predictthe traffic flowrate and density for up to two days in advance.We try two different approaches, CNN-LSTM and dual input CNN to predict the numberof new people and the total number of people from the images and compare how well eachapproach performs. The results show that the dual image input CNN models are moreeffective at predicting the number of new people and the total number of people than the CNN- LSTM models. Tested on independent test sets of images using K-fold cross-validation, theMTL CNN model achieved a test accuracy of 72% for the number of new people and 78%accuracy for the total number of people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society ConferenceSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207