Fitting Empirical Fundamental Diagrams of Road Traffic: A Comprehensive Review and Comparison of Models Using an Extensive Data Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the inter-relationships between traffic flow, density, and speed through the study of the fundamental diagram of road traffic is critical for traffic modelling and management. Consequently, over the last 85 years, a wealth of models have been developed for its functional form. However, there has been no clear answer as to which model is the most appropriate for observed (i.e. empirical) fundamental diagrams and under which conditions. A lack of data has been partly to blame. Motivated by shortcomings in previous reviews, we first present a comprehensive literature review on modelling the functional form of empirical fundamental diagrams. We then perform fits of 50 previously proposed models to a high quality sample of 10,150 empirical fundamental diagrams pertaining to 25 cities. Comparing the fits using information criteria, we find that the non-parametric Sun model greatly outperforms all of the other models. The Sun model maintains its winning position regardless of road type and congestion level. Our study, the first of its kind when considering the number of models tested and the amount of data used, finally provides a definitive answer to the question “Which model for the functional form of an empirical fundamental diagram is currently the best?’‘. The word “currently” in this question is key, because previously proposed models adopt an inappropriate Gaussian noise model with constant variance. We advocate that future research should shift focus to exploring more sophisticated noise models. This will lead to an improved understanding of empirical fundamental diagrams and their underlying functional forms. Accepted by IEEE Transactions On Intelligent Transportation Systems on 14th Dec 2021
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".