Conflict Probability Prediction and Safety Assessment of Straight-Left Traffic Flow at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of signalized intersections is of great concern. To allow for an effective evaluation measure on the safety level of intersections, traffic conflict analysis methods are commonly used. However, the existing literature has mainly focused on the statistical prediction of conflicts by using surrogate measurements, among which the spatial-temporal characteristics of the potential conflicts have been less addressed. In addition, most of the relevant studies rely on precise trajectory data, and the results could be limited to engineering applications when real-time/comprehensive trajectory data are not available. To address these issues, this study proposes a SICP (signalized intersection conflict probability) model to predict a straight-left traffic flow conflict with a spatial-temporal distribution in the heat map, which could effectively evaluate the traffic safety of the existing or prebuilt signalized intersections on urban roads. Firstly, the impact of vehicle movement characteristics on traffic conflict at signalized intersections was considered by incorporating the vehicle movement trajectory. Secondly, the signal phase was categorized in several stages (each phase contains switching and nonswitching stages); then, a vehicle-vehicle conflicts probability prediction model was established by integrating both horizontal and vertical arrival probability. Finally, to validate the performance of the proposed model, the measured data were collected from the intersection of Wushan road and Yuehan road in Tianhe District, Guangzhou, China. SSAM（Surrogate Safety Assessment Model）traffic conflict simulation was used to analyze the traffic conflict in the actual data and compared to the SICP model. A case study was conducted to reveal the evolution mechanism of the conflict risk coefficient at the signalized intersection and to estimate the safety status under the various security optimization strategies. The experimental results verified the effectiveness of the SICP model, indicating that the proposed model is effective in evaluating the safety level of existing or prebuilt signalized intersections.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".