MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235611500 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2004.1371482

Optimization of Traffic Signal Light Timing Using Simulation

2005· article· en· W4235611500 on OpenAlexaff
K.N. Hewage, J.Y. Ruwanpura

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraffic signalComputer scienceSignal timingSIGNAL (programming language)Traffic flow (computer networking)Traffic simulationTraffic congestionTraffic congestion reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theoryReal-time computingTraffic optimizationSimulationFloating car dataNetwork traffic simulationTransport engineeringEngineeringNetwork traffic controlMicrosimulationComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic congestion is one of the worst problems in many countries. Traffic congestion wastes a huge portion of the national income for fuel and traffic-related environmental and socioeconomic problems. Computer simulation is a powerful tool for analyzing complex and dynamic scenarios. It provides an appealing approach to analyze repetitive processes. Simulation helps decision makers identify different possible options by analyzing enormous amounts of data. Hence, computer simulation can be used effectively to analyze traffic flow patterns and signal light timing. This paper discusses a special-purpose simulation (SPS) tool for optimize traffic signal light timing. The simulation model is capable of optimizing signal light timing at a single junction as well as an actual road network with multiple junctions. It also provides signal light timing for certain time periods according to traffic demand. Traffic engineers at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka are testing the developed tool for actual applications.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004.Same topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207