MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Optimizing Route Planning in Urban Traffic

2025· article· en· W4408794272 on OpenAlexaff
Mudit Mittal, Archana Sehgal, Neeraj Varshney, Sunil Prashanth Kumar, Nandini Shirish Boob, Rutvik Reddy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTransport engineeringMotion planningEngineeringRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban traffic networks are efficient route design problems due to the intricacy and dynamic character of contemporary cities. Conventional methods hamper real time adjustment to continually changing traffic conditions, thereby providing suboptimal routes, a greater burden on the roadways, and greater air pollution. This thesis presents a novel deep reinforcement learning (DRL) method to optimize the route planning for urban traffic networks. With this rendering of real time traffic data, we use DRL to make autonomous decisions to reduce travel time and congestion of routes. One advantage of using sophisticated neural networks for feature extraction and policy learning is that, since the model is so adaptable to changing traffic patterns, the model guarantees that. And, in comparison to common routing algorithms, the results of simulations using real world traffic data show that this method is able to greatly enhance route efficiency and overall traffic flow management. The suggested DRL based system is feasible as a smart city program based on intelligent transportation system which can scale to grand metropolitan regions. The research presents that DRL can enhance the commuter run experience, reduce the environmental effect, and alter urban transportation. Future study will also investigate how this system can be better optimized when integrated with traffic infrastructure enabled by the Internet of Things.

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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207