MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406872735 · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104094

Traffic flow modelling of vehicles on a six lane freeway: Comparative analysis of improved group method of data handling and artificial neural network model

2025· article· en· W4406872735 on OpenAlex
Isaac Oyeyemi Olayode, Alessandro Severino, Frimpong J. Alex, Elmira Jamei

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResults in Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Transportation
KeywordsArtificial neural networkTraffic flow (computer networking)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceData miningTransport engineeringEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Mathematical model for South African freeway using real-time data to analyze traffic conditions. • Group method of Data Handling shows better fit to observed data, outperforming Artificial neural network in predicting traffic flow patterns. • Group method of Data Handling reduces model complexity, improves computing performance, and maintains efficiency. In recent decades, traffic flow modelling has become increasingly significant for improving road transportation systems and mitigating congestion on freeways. This research presents a comparative analysis of two machine learning methodologies—Improved Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN)—for modelling vehicular traffic flow on a six-lane freeway. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive accuracy and efficacy of both models in replicating complex traffic patterns and to provide insights into their suitability for real-time traffic flow applications. Traffic flow data were obtained from a six-lane freeway during off-peak and on-peak hours using South African road transportation systems as a case study. Traffic flow variables, such as vehicle density, speed, time, and traffic volume, were considered as both inputs and outputs. The models were trained and validated using this dataset, and the GMDH and ANN were assessed according to their regression efficacy R 2 and MSE. The results indicate that both models can effectively capture the nonlinear relationships present in the traffic flow of vehicles on a six-lane freeway. However, GMDH outperformed ANN in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency. The optimal regression values for GMDH and ANN were 0.99372 and 0.9167, respectively, demonstrating that GMDH provided a substantially superior fit to the observed data. The exceptional efficacy of the GMDH is attributed to its self-organising architecture and capacity to autonomously identify the most pertinent inputs, thereby reducing model complexity and enhancing generalisation. Artificial Neural Networks, while efficient, require comprehensive tuning and may experience overfitting in high-dimensional datasets. This study suggests that GMDH is a more reliable and effective model for modelling traffic flow on a six-lane freeway, presenting opportunities for real-time traffic prediction and traffic flow management applications.

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.

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 score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · 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