new approaches for traffic state estimation: calibrating heterogeneous car-following behavior using...
TRANSCRIPT
1
New Approaches for Traffic State Estimation:
Calibrating Heterogeneous Car-Following Behavior using Vehicle Trajectory Data
Dr. Xuesong Zhou & Jeffrey Taylor, Univ. of Utah
2
Outline Background on Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) Application to Newell’s Simplified CFM Calibration Results Important Considerations
3
Motivations: I Real-time Traffic Management
Automatic Vehicle IdentificationAutomatic Vehicle Location
Loop Detector
Video Image Processing
4
Motivation 2: Self-driving Cars as Mobile Sensor Controlled , coordinated movements
Proactive approach
Applications Automated cars Unmanned aerial vehicles
5
Motivation 3: Detecting Distracted/Risky Drivers
6
Underlying Theory:Cross-resolution Traffic Modeling
Reaction distance/spacing δ Reaction time lag τW = δ/ τ
Time
Space
7
How to Estimate Driver-specific Car-following Parameters? Input and output
8
Intro to Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)
Time
Position
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(A) Vehicle Trajectories with DTW Match Solution
X: Leader
Y: Follower
Match Solution
Time
Velocity
X: LeaderY: Follower
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(B) Vehicle Velocity Time Series
• Matches points by measure of similarity
Euclidean Vs Dynamic Time Warping
Euclidean DistanceSequences are aligned “one to one”.
“Warped” Time AxisNonlinear alignments are possible.
Reference: Eamonn Keogh
Computer Science & Engineering DepartmentUniversity of California - Riverside
10
Construct Cost Matrix for Traffic Trajectory Matching
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 0 0 0 0 20 18 18 52 0 0 0 0 20 18 18 53 0 0 0 0 20 18 18 54 20 20 20 20 3 3 3 255 20 20 20 20 3 3 3 256 5 5 5 5 23 23 23 07 5 5 5 5 23 23 23 08 5 5 5 5 23 23 23 0
Time
Velocity Y: Follower
TimeVelocity
X: Leader
(C) Cost Matrix (for Velocity)
wij
jxixrdjxixijYXYXC FL
FLjiji
)()()()(),(
Time
Position
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(A) Vehicle Trajectories with DTW Match Solution
X: Leader
Y: Follower
Match Solution
11
Cumulative Cost Matrix Dynamic programming
Calculate the least cost for matching a pair of points
Warp path Least cost matching
points from end to beginning
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 62 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 613 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 614 20 20 20 20 3 6 9 345 40 40 40 40 6 6 9 346 45 45 45 45 29 29 29 97 50 50 50 50 52 52 52 98 55 55 55 55 75 75 75 9
(D) Cumulative Cost Matrix with Highlighted Warp Path
τ = TF – TL
d = XL(tL) - XF(tF)
Follower:
Lea
der
Singularity
Time
Position
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(A) Vehicle Trajectories with DTW Match Solution
X: Leader
Y: Follower
Match Solution
12
Application to Newell’s Model Follower separated
by leader by reaction time and critical jam spacing
Algorithm finds optimal τn (time lag) for best velocity match Calculate dn for all time
steps along the trajectory
Sn
Sn’
τn
dn
Xn(t)
Xn-1(t)
Time, tD
ista
nce
, X
nnnn dtxtx )()( 1
Calibrated Parameters: Car 1737
1 25 49 73 97 1211451691932172412652893133373613854094334574815055295535770
5
10
15
20
25
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Critical Jam Spacing Backward Wave Speed Reaction Time
Spacin
g (
m)
& W
ave S
peed (
km
/h)
Reacti
on T
ime (
seconds)
Reaction Time Lag (sec)
Critical Spacing (m)
Backward Wave Speed (km/h)
Avg 2.62 13.39 18.46
St. Dev 0.41 2.08 1.05
14
NGSIM Data: I-80 Lane 4
15
NGSIM Data: I-80 Lane 4: Reaction Time Distribution
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5x 10
4
Reaction Time (seconds)
Fre
quen
cy
Mean = 1.48 seconds
16
NGSIM Data: I-80 Lane 4Critical Spacing Distribution
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5x 10
4
Spacing (meters)
Fre
quen
cy
Mean = 8.06 meters
17
NGSIM Data: I-80 Lane 4Wave Speed Distribution
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Wave Speed (km/h)
Fre
quen
cy
Mean = 20.55 km/h
18
Current Issues in DTW Application Singularities
Locations with more than one match solution Data reduction algorithms
Parameter estimates differ with available methods
19
Singularities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 62 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 613 0 0 0 0 20 38 56 614 20 20 20 20 3 6 9 345 40 40 40 40 6 6 9 346 45 45 45 45 29 29 29 97 50 50 50 50 52 52 52 98 55 55 55 55 75 75 75 9
(D) Cumulative Cost Matrix with Highlighted Warp Path
τ = TF – TL
d = XL(tL) - XF(tF)
Follower:Le
ader
5160 5180 5200 5220 5240 5260 5280 5300 5320300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Time (1/10 sec)
Pos
ition
(ft
)
DTW Trajectory Match (Based on Acceleration Data)
20
Singularity Implications 1st Interpretation: Many
responses to 1 stimulus 2nd Interpretation: 1
response to many stimuli
3rd Interpretation: Algorithm drawback Increases uncertainty in
parameter estimates LCSS force 1-to-1 match
LCSS : Longest Common Subsequence
5160 5180 5200 5220 5240 5260 5280 5300 5320300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Time (1/10 sec)
Pos
ition
(ft
)
DTW Trajectory Match (Based on Acceleration Data)
21
Singularities
Without Prior Information
With Prior Information
22
Data Reduction Algorithms
• Piecewise Linear Approximation/Regression– Somewhat subjective in application, needs dynamic
parameters
– Difficulties creating new points application with Newell’s model
23
Potential Applications Analyze intradriver heterogeneity Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for reaction
time/critical jam spacing Analyze relationships between parameters
24
Markov Chain Transition Matrix
Reaction Time + + + 0 0 0 - - -Acceleration + 0 - + 0 - + 0 -
+ 0.1 0.050 0.001 0.048 0.036 0.199 0.102 0.058 0.043 0.0430.0 0.950 0.949 0.952 0.918 0.801 0.898 0.942 0.858 0.751
- 0.1 0.001 0.049 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.207Sum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Reaction Time + + + 0 0 0 - - -
Acceleration + 0 - + 0 - + 0 -
0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.010 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
-0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Sum 100.0%####
#100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Hypothetical case:
25
Trajectory Prediction (MCMC)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Original Trajectory
Predicted Trajectory
~ 5% MAPE