MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389252770 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3334909

A Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model for Probabilistic Modeling of Car-Following Behaviors

2023· article· en· W4389252770 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoxu Chen, Chengyuan Zhang, Zhanhong Cheng, Yuang Hou, Lijun Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsProbabilistic logicMixture modelBayesian probabilityStatistical modelGaussian network modelComputer scienceGaussianGaussian processArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Car-following models are essential for microscopic traffic simulation. While conventional models rely on parsimonious formulas with simplified assumptions, recent studies have focused on developing data-driven models with the help of high-resolution trajectory data. This paper presents a data-driven model based on a Bayesian Gaussian mixture model (GMM) for probabilistic forecasting of human car-following behaviors. By incorporating past and future information, our model captures the temporal dynamics of human car-following behaviors, providing accurate predictions of the following vehicle’s behavior and quantifying the forecast uncertainty. We demonstrate the interpretability of the Bayesian GMM in modeling car-following behaviors, providing valuable insights into the heterogeneity and uncertainty of driver behaviors. Additionally, we show that the proposed model can make probabilistic multi-vehicle simulations that reproduce natural traffic phenomena. Our results suggest that the proposed Bayesian GMM is a promising approach for modeling and forecasting car-following behaviors in various driving scenarios, contributing to the development of safer and more efficient transportation systems.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207