Deep Learning Algorithms for Traffic Flow Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the growing complexity of urban transportation systems, precise traffic flow forecasting is essential for reducing not only issues of congestion but also, for boosting road safety and enhancing mobility management. This study integrates Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory (CNN-LSTM), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) to present a hybrid deep learning framework for traffic prediction. Of these, the CNN-LSTM model is a reliable option for real-time traffic forecasting since it successfully captures both spatial and temporal dependencies, resulting in superior predictive performance. The dataset used to assess the framework includes 48,120 records from a traffic monitoring system that include hourly vehicle counts at several intersections. With an average of 22.79 vehicles per hour, a variance of 430.57, and a standard deviation of 20.75, statistical analysis shows that traffic fluctuates significantly. Based on experimental results, CNN-LSTM achieves a competitive Mean sq\.d Error (MSE) of 0.0095, a precision of 0.73, and a recall of 0.74, outperforming LSTM and RNN in high-traffic situations. This study demonstrates the potential of hybrid models–-in particular, CNN-LSTM–-in striking a balance between computational efficiency and predictive accuracy. Future research should incorporate GPS feeds and real-time data from IoT sensors to improve model adaptability and offer a scalable and clever urban traffic management solution.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".