Short‐term prediction of traffic parameters—performance comparison of a data‐driven and less‐data‐required approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The travel decisions made by road users are more affected by the traffic conditions when they travel than the current conditions. Thus, accurate prediction of traffic parameters for giving reliable information about the future state of traffic conditions is very important. Mainly, this is an essential component of many advanced traveller information systems coming under the intelligent transportation systems umbrella. In India, the automated traffic data collection is in the beginning stage, with many of the cities still struggling with database generation and processing, and hence, a less‐data‐demanding approach will be attractive for such applications, if it is not going to reduce the prediction accuracy to a great extent. The present study explores this area and tries to answer this question using automated data collected from field. A data‐driven technique, namely, artificial neural networks (ANN), which is shown to be a good tool for prediction problems, is taken as an example for data‐driven approach. Grey model, GM(1,1), which is also reported as a good prediction tool, is selected as the less‐data‐demanding approach. Volume, classified volume, average speed and classified speed at a particular location were selected for the prediction. The results showed comparable performance by both the methods. However, ANN required around seven times data compared with GM for comparable performance. Thus, considering the comparatively lesser input requirement of GM, it can be considered over ANN in situations where the historic database is limited. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".