Intelligent Meta-Heuristic-Based Optimization of Traffic Light Timing Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines worldwide concerns over traffic congestion, encompassing aspects such as security, parking, pollution, and congestion. It specifically emphasizes the importance of implementing appropriate traffic light timing as a means to mitigate these issues. The research utilized a dataset from Montreal and partitioned the simulated area into various zones in order to determine congestion levels for each individual zone. A range of prediction algorithms has been employed, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Decision Tree (DT), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), and Seasonal Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA), to predict congestion levels at each traffic light. This information was used in a mathematical formulation to minimize the average waiting time for vehicles inside the road network. Many meta-heuristics were analyzed and compared, with the introduction of an Enhanced Bat Algorithm (EBAT) suggested for addressing the traffic signal optimization problem. Three distinct scenarios are described: fixed (with a constant green timing of 40 s), dynamic (where the timing changes in real-time based on the current level of congestion), and adaptive (which involves predicting congestion ahead of time). The scenarios are studied with low and high congestion scenarios in the road network. The Enhanced Bat Algorithm (EBAT) is introduced as a solution to optimize traffic signal timing. It enhances the original Bat algorithm by incorporating adaptive parameter tuning and guided exploration techniques that are informed by predicted congestion levels. The EBAT algorithm provides a more effective treatment for congestion problems by decreasing travel time, enhancing vehicle throughput, and minimizing pollutant emissions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".