MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293792624 · doi:10.1155/2022/3398862

A Car-Following Model considering the Effect of Following Vehicles under the Framework of Physics-Informed Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4293792624 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Le Xu, Jianxiao Ma, Yuchen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajor Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu ProvinceMinistry of Education, IndiaGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCalibrationFusionMachine learningProcess (computing)Deep learningSensor fusionMean squared errorSimulationData miningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Car-following models have been studied for a long time, and many traffic engineers and researchers have devoted attention to them. With the increase in machine learning, this paper proposes a fusion model based on the physics-informed deep learning framework. The purpose of this paper is to inherit the predecessors’ ideas, transform them to fit a new framework, and improve the framework’s accuracy. The IDM-D (intelligent driver model development) involves reenabling the effect of the following vehicle to form a complementary model (not car-following model) with the IDM (intelligent driver model). The pretreated NGSIM data are used for calibration and validation. The IDM and the IDM-D are combined with the LSTM under the framework of physics-informed deep learning, and the results are mixed in a ratio to form the final result. Using test data for simulation, the results reveal that the IDM-informed LSTM shows better performance than the LSTM and that the fusion model further improves the MSE (mean square error) of the IDM-informed LSTM. The fusion increases the accuracy during the deceleration process, which is better than just a single IDM-informed LSTM. The fusion model further explains drivers’ deceleration behaviors.

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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207