MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308446112 · doi:10.1155/2022/8208957

Adaptive Numerical Method for Approximation of Traffic Flow Equations

2022· article· en· W4308446112 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neda Najafzadeh, S. Abbasbandy, Elyas Shivanian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsExponential functionApplied mathematicsMoving least squaresFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsNumerical analysisFlexibility (engineering)Mathematical optimizationMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a long time now, traffic equations have been considered, and different modeling has been done for it. In this article, we work on the macroscopic model, especially the most famous light model. Because these models are among the stiff and shocking problems, theoretical methods do not give good answers to these problems. This paper describes a meshless method to solve the traffic flow equation as a stiff equation. In the proposed method, we also use the exponential time differencing (ETD) method and the exponential time differencing fourth-order Runge–Kutta (ETDRK4). The purpose of this new method is to use methods of the moving least squares (MLS) method and a modified exponential time differencing fourth-order Runge–Kutta scheme. To solve these equations, we use the meshless method MLS to approximate the spatial derivatives and then use method ETDRK4 to obtain approximate solutions. In order to improve the possible instabilities of method ETDRK4, approaches have been stated. The MLS method provided good results for these equations due to its high flexibility and high accuracy and has a moving window and obtains the solution at the shock point without any false oscillations. The technique is described in detail, and a number of computational examples are presented.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207