2014
DOI: 10.1111/mice.12061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Probabilistic and Physical Consistency of Traffic Random Variables and Models

Abstract: In this article we deal with the probabilistic and physical consistency of traffic-related random vari

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that the proof of Proposition is also known as “thinning of a Poisson process,” a general and more detailed proof can be found in Corollary 9.17 in Boucherie and Serfozo () or in Clark and Watling () and Castillo et al. (). The right‐hand side of Equation is a product of a series of Poisson variables hkm, whose parameters are pkmsm.…”
Section: Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the proof of Proposition is also known as “thinning of a Poisson process,” a general and more detailed proof can be found in Corollary 9.17 in Boucherie and Serfozo () or in Clark and Watling () and Castillo et al. (). The right‐hand side of Equation is a product of a series of Poisson variables hkm, whose parameters are pkmsm.…”
Section: Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Except for structural conciseness, the selection of miscroscopic traffic flow model needs to consider its accuracy to capture driver car-following dynamics in both micro-and macroscopic levels. A number of microscopic car-following models have been introduced so far (Ghosh-Dastidar and Adeli, 2006;Castillo et al, 2014;Ngoduy and Wilson, 2014;Ward and Wilson, 2011). The human driver model used here is an improved version of the Gipps model, called the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM) (Treiber et al, 2000;Helbing et al, 2009).…”
Section: Model For Human Driversmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…though corrected by the tiredness factor at, explained before. Note that the factor at being smaller than one must be used as a multiplying factor and cannot be used as a denominator to increase a failure probability because it can lead to values larger than one, that is, to an inconsistent model (see Castillo et al, ). On the other hand, some signals, depending on their state, require a given action from the driver, which, in case of being ignored, lead to a hazard or risk situation and possibly to an accident.…”
Section: Detailed Description Of Some Bayesian Subnetworkmentioning
confidence: 99%