Samson Ting, Thomas Lymburn, Thomas Stemler, Yuchao Sun, Michael Small
{"title":"Estimating gap acceptance parameters with a Bayesian approach","authors":"Samson Ting, Thomas Lymburn, Thomas Stemler, Yuchao Sun, Michael Small","doi":"10.1016/j.trb.2025.103157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The gap acceptance framework is the theoretical basis for modelling traffic flow at intersections with a priority control. Reliable estimation methods for key gap acceptance parameters are important to more accurately predict key traffic performance measures such as capacity and delay. A notable challenge is that the critical gaps are not directly observable. Currently, the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) is widely accepted as the most reliable method. In this research, we considered a Bayesian approach as an alternative framework for estimating gap acceptance parameters, which achieves a comparable performance to the MLE. We first formalised the gap acceptance statistical model and the estimand of interest, based on a Bayesian hierarchical formulation that naturally captures the variations between drivers. We then tested the performance of each method on simulated dataset, with the Bayesian posterior obtained through the No-U-Turn sampler, an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. We showed that the MLE and the posterior mean as a point summary of the full posterior distribution have comparable performance, and both generally achieve a mean absolute error <mml:math altimg=\"si1.svg\" display=\"inline\"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math> s for different major stream flow <mml:math altimg=\"si314.svg\" display=\"inline\"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math> in our experiment setup. In addition, we found that the standard error is higher for both low and high <mml:math altimg=\"si314.svg\" display=\"inline\"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math> so any point estimator is unlikely to be equally reliable across all level of <mml:math altimg=\"si314.svg\" display=\"inline\"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math>’s. Furthermore, we also identified a potential issue when assuming consistent drivers and log-normally distributed critical gaps at high <mml:math altimg=\"si314.svg\" display=\"inline\"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math>, as the heavy tail of the log-normal can result in unrealistic dataset. The full Bayesian approach also allows inherent uncertainty quantification, which we found to be well-calibrated, in the sense that the credible intervals obtained have roughly the correct frequentist coverage as per confidence intervals constructed with frequentist methods. From a traffic engineering point of view, quantifying uncertainties in gap acceptance parameters, whether using Bayesian or frequentist methods, is important as they induce uncertainties on intersection performance metrics such as capacity and delay, which will allow more informed decision-making for infrastructure investment. In addition, we also assessed the performance of Bayesian methods for more complicated statistical models, using a test scenario involving inconsistent driver behaviour, by jointly estimating the gap acceptance parameters and the inconsistency parameters. Lastly, we demonstrated the applicability of the proposed Bayesian framework to real data collected at roundabouts in Perth, Western Australia. We found the mean critical gap to mostly lie between 3.0 to 5.0 s, and the standard deviation between 1.0 to 2.0 s, and our validation checks suggest the potential need to extend the statistical model with consideration of the interactive nature of roundabouts.","PeriodicalId":54418,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2025.103157","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The gap acceptance framework is the theoretical basis for modelling traffic flow at intersections with a priority control. Reliable estimation methods for key gap acceptance parameters are important to more accurately predict key traffic performance measures such as capacity and delay. A notable challenge is that the critical gaps are not directly observable. Currently, the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) is widely accepted as the most reliable method. In this research, we considered a Bayesian approach as an alternative framework for estimating gap acceptance parameters, which achieves a comparable performance to the MLE. We first formalised the gap acceptance statistical model and the estimand of interest, based on a Bayesian hierarchical formulation that naturally captures the variations between drivers. We then tested the performance of each method on simulated dataset, with the Bayesian posterior obtained through the No-U-Turn sampler, an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. We showed that the MLE and the posterior mean as a point summary of the full posterior distribution have comparable performance, and both generally achieve a mean absolute error ≤0.2 s for different major stream flow qp in our experiment setup. In addition, we found that the standard error is higher for both low and high qp so any point estimator is unlikely to be equally reliable across all level of qp’s. Furthermore, we also identified a potential issue when assuming consistent drivers and log-normally distributed critical gaps at high qp, as the heavy tail of the log-normal can result in unrealistic dataset. The full Bayesian approach also allows inherent uncertainty quantification, which we found to be well-calibrated, in the sense that the credible intervals obtained have roughly the correct frequentist coverage as per confidence intervals constructed with frequentist methods. From a traffic engineering point of view, quantifying uncertainties in gap acceptance parameters, whether using Bayesian or frequentist methods, is important as they induce uncertainties on intersection performance metrics such as capacity and delay, which will allow more informed decision-making for infrastructure investment. In addition, we also assessed the performance of Bayesian methods for more complicated statistical models, using a test scenario involving inconsistent driver behaviour, by jointly estimating the gap acceptance parameters and the inconsistency parameters. Lastly, we demonstrated the applicability of the proposed Bayesian framework to real data collected at roundabouts in Perth, Western Australia. We found the mean critical gap to mostly lie between 3.0 to 5.0 s, and the standard deviation between 1.0 to 2.0 s, and our validation checks suggest the potential need to extend the statistical model with consideration of the interactive nature of roundabouts.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research: Part B publishes papers on all methodological aspects of the subject, particularly those that require mathematical analysis. The general theme of the journal is the development and solution of problems that are adequately motivated to deal with important aspects of the design and/or analysis of transportation systems. Areas covered include: traffic flow; design and analysis of transportation networks; control and scheduling; optimization; queuing theory; logistics; supply chains; development and application of statistical, econometric and mathematical models to address transportation problems; cost models; pricing and/or investment; traveler or shipper behavior; cost-benefit methodologies.