MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229048432 · doi:10.32473/flairs.v35i.130724

Vehicle Traffic Estimation Using Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4229048432 on OpenAlexaff
Meetkumar Patel, 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
KeywordsMean absolute percentage errorTraffic flow (computer networking)Computer scienceArtificial neural networkConvolutional neural networkMean squared errorDeep learningWord error rateStatisticsMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For commuters, vehicular traffic is an important planning concern. People have access to the weather forecast and the current traffic situation, but there is no application available to estimate traffic congestion and flow in the near future. Thus, we design and develop a machine learning approach which can predict vehicular traffic density and flowrate up to two days in the future based on the weather, calendar and special events data.First, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks are utilized to predict the number of new vehicles and the total number of vehicles in images captured by a Nova Scotia Webcams (NS Webcams) video camera. The best models provide a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 20.38% for the number of new vehicles and 18.56% for the total number of vehicles. These values are used to estimate traffic flowrate and density for hourly records over a three-month period.The hourly traffic data is combined with observed and forecasted weather data, and special event data to create a time series data. A Multiple Task Learning (MTL) - LSTM model is trained and tested using these data and a K-fold cross-validation approach. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and MAPE are used to evaluate the model performance. The MTL-LSTM model achieves a MAPE of 19.35% and 27.50% for flowrate and density using observed weather data, respectively. In the case of forecasted weather data, the MAPE for flowrate and density increases to 20.51% and 31.10%, respectively.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
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