4.6 Article

Evaluation of Outlier Filtering Algorithms for Accurate Travel Time Measurement Incorporating Lane-Splitting Situations

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su132413851

关键词

travel time; lane-splitting; MAC address; outlier filtering algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the Jang algorithm performed the best for two of the three routes with lane-splitting observations, while the TransGuide algorithm was the best for one route. However, the parameters of both algorithms are sensitive to different dates and require daily calibration for acceptable results.
Malaysia has a high percentage of motorcycles. Due to lane-splitting, travel times of motorcycles are less than passenger cars at congestion. Because of this, collecting travel times using the media access control (MAC) address is not straightforward. Many outlier filtering algorithms for travel time datasets have not been evaluated for their capability to filter lane-splitting observations. This study aims to identify the best travel time filtering algorithms for the data containing lane-splitting observations and how to use the best algorithm. Two stages were adopted to achieve the objective of the study. The first stage validates the performance of the previous algorithms, and the second stage checks the sensitivity of the algorithm parameters for different days. The analysis uses the travel time data for three routes in Kuala Lumpur collected by Wi-Fi detectors in May 2018. The results show that the Jang algorithm has the best performance for two of the three routes, and the TransGuide algorithm is the best algorithm for one route. However, the parameters of Jang and TransGuide algorithms are sensitive for different days, and the parameters require daily calibration to obtain acceptable results. Using proper calibration of the algorithm parameters, the Jang and TransGuide algorithms produced the most accurate filtered travel time datasets compared to other algorithms

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据