Real-Time Travel Time Prediction Based on Evolving Fuzzy Participatory Learning Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban expressways take on rapid and external transport in the city due to their fast, safe, and large capacity. Implementing intelligent and active traffic control can effectively improve the performance of urban traffic and mitigate the urban traffic congestion problem. Real-time traffic guidance is one critical way of intelligent active traffic control, and travel time is the most important input for real-time traffic guidance. We employed and improved a machine learning method called the evolving fuzzy participatory learning (ePL) model to predict the freeway travel time online in this paper. The ePL model has a promising nonlinear mapping potential, which is well suitable for the traffic prediction. We used generalized recursive least square (GRLS) to improve the estimation accuracy of the model’s parameters. This model is a fuzzy control model. Its output is the forecasting result which is also the fuzzy reasoning result. We tested this model by comparing it to other travel time prediction approaches, with the freeway data from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System. The results from the improved ePL model showed mean absolute error of 5.941 seconds, mean absolute percentage error of 1.316%, and root mean square error of 10.923 s. The performances are better than those of the baseline models including ARIMA and BPN. This model can be used to predict the travel time in the field to be used for active traffic control and traffic guidance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".