Research Article  Open Access
TaiYu Ma, Yoann Pigné, "Bayesian Dynamic Linear Model with Adaptive Parameter Estimation for ShortTerm Travel Speed Prediction", Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2019, Article ID 5314520, 10 pages, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5314520
Bayesian Dynamic Linear Model with Adaptive Parameter Estimation for ShortTerm Travel Speed Prediction
Abstract
Bayesian dynamic linear model is a promising method for time series data analysis and shortterm forecasting. One research issue concerns how the predictive model adapts to changes in the system, especially when shocks impact system behavior. In this study, we propose an adaptive dynamic linear model to adaptively update model parameters for online system state prediction. The proposed method is an automatic approach based on the feedback of prediction errors at each time slot without the needs of external intervention. The experimental study on shortterm travel speed prediction shows that the proposed method can significantly reduce the prediction errors of the traditional dynamic linear model and outperform two stateoftheart methods in the case of major system behavior changes.
1. Introduction
Accurate shortterm traffic prediction plays an important role for successful traffic information system application such as enroute navigation system, traffic control, and traffic congestion management [1]. During past decades, different prediction methods have been proposed to predict traffic states for developing effective traveler information system and realtime traffic management. The methodology for shortterm travel time/traffic flow prediction can be classified into the datadriven approach and modeldriven approach [2–5]. The modeldriven approach consists in applying traffic flow theory to inference traffic state dynamics based on partial observation of traffic data [6–10]. The advantage of the modeldriven approach is that it can obtain accurate traffic state estimation with fewer observations. However, the performance of the modeldriven approach can be poor if the applied models are not well calibrated [4]. As regards the datadriven approach, it relies on the spatialtemporal correlation of traffic states for which future traffic states can be estimated based on historical time series data. Among different datadriven approaches, which are the focus of this study, machine learning methods are widely used for traffic characteristics prediction, e.g., neural networks [11, 12], autoregressive integrated moving average models (ARIMA) [13, 14], support vector machine methods [15], nearest neighbor classification methods [16, 17], ensemble learning approach [12], and Bayesian dynamic linear models (DLM)/state space models [18–22], among many others. One of the main issues in shortterm traffic prediction is how to dynamically adapt a predicting model to the uncertainty of system behavior changes, in particular in case of accident or unforeseen events. With recent vehicular communication advances in realtime traffic data collection, the development of adaptive shortterm traffic prediction methods become an active research area in transportation science and in developing applications based on vehicular communication technology.
In this perspective, the DLM approach provides a systematic approach based on Bayes’ theorem for system states updating and prediction. This approach considers system states of interest as unknown stochastic variables to be estimated. The prior distribution of system states is quantified based on historical data. By collecting new data over time, the posterior distribution of system states can be estimated based on the Bayes’ theorem. This sequential learning framework provides an adaptive learning process for handling time series data prediction. It has been shown that model parameters need to be adaptive with system behavior [23]. Fei et al. [19] proposed a DLM for realtime shortterm freeway travel time prediction. The model adjusts the variances of disturbance under a userdefined threshold based on the adaptive control theory. However, such an adjustment mechanism is not optimized and relies on the intervention of expert knowledge, raising issues in its generalization in different areas. For this issue, Fei et al. [18] incorporated a Markov switching process in the DLM based on the threephase traffic flow theory. They showed the Markov switching DLM approach outperforms the ARIMA method.
Another adaptive modeling approach consists in developing methodology to detect change points of system states and update system parameters to catch system behavior changes [24–29]. The changepoint detection methods can be designed to monitor prediction errors and detect accidents, providing feedback to adjust model prediction and reduce prediction errors. Comert and Bezuglov [25] applied the hidden Markov model (HMM) and the expectationmaximization (EM) algorithm as a changepoint detection method to update the estimation of parameters (i.e., process mean) used in the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. MoreiraMatias and Alesiani [28] proposed a change detection method based on PageHinkley changepoint detection method [30] for triggering an accident alarm. The threshold for alarm triggering is a userdefined deterministic parameter, corresponding to a tolerable false alarm rate.
In this study, a new online adaptive parameter estimation approach is proposed under the DLM framework to achieve better accuracy of prediction when some external events or system regime changes occur. This method is based on continuously monitoring prediction errors for adaptively adjusting model parameters. The main contribution resides on the adaptive model parameter adjustment design to improve classical DLM approach when unpredicted system behavior changes are detected. The performance of the proposed approach is tested on a simulated road network under accidental scenarios. The performance of the proposed method is compared with classical DLM methods and the benchmark methods, i.e., ARIMA method [31] and HoltWinters Exponential Smoothing method [32]. Note that we do not intend to extensively compare the proposed approach with other methods, but instead to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in improving the parameter setting issues of classical DLM approaches.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the general DLM forecasting framework and different DLM specifications for time series data analysis. In Section 3, a new adaptive parameter estimation method is proposed for online parameter learning to reduce prediction error. Section 4 reports the numerical study on realtime shortterm road travel speed prediction under accidental scenarios. A comparative study with two other stateoftheart methods is provided. Finally, conclusions are drawn and future extensions are discussed.
2. Bayesian Dynamic Linear Model for Traffic State Prediction
A general DLM can be described by an observation equation and a system state equation to model the process of a system [23]. The state equation describes system state evolution mapping from a priori distribution at t1 to posterior distribution at time t. The observation equation describes observed measurements at time t in relation to system states. The evolution of system states over time is assumed to follow a stochastic process with Gaussian errors. A DLM can be written as [23] In (1), is the system state at time t. is the evolution matrix of . In (2), is observation at time . is the design matrix of . and are white noise error terms following normal distribution with 0 mean and variance and , respectively. It is assumed that and are mutually independent, i.e., for . The ratio is called the signaltonoise ratio at time . It represents the ratio of system prediction errors and observation errors . In general, and are unknown and need to be estimated from data. The general DLM can be represented by a quadruple over time . The DLM provides a probabilistic linkage to update the posterior distribution of system states based on a priori distribution and newly available observations over time based on the Bayesian forecasting framework [19, 23, 33]. The Bayesian forecasting framework in the context of traffic speed prediction on a road network is described as follows.
2.1. Bayesian Forecasting Framework
Step 1 (initialization). Initialize system state variables (i.e., travel speed on a road section/link) at . where denotes the estimated means of link travel speed at ; is the estimated variance based on the initial information set (i.e., historical travel speed data on network). Set .
Step 2 (prior distribution estimation). Estimate the prior distribution of aswhere is the normal distribution. is the estimated mean of system states, and is the estimated variance of system states. We can observe that increasing or will amplify the variance of .
Step 3 (onestep forecast). Estimate onestep forecast for aswhere is the mean of prediction at and is the variance of prediction at . We can observed that if (i.e., design matrix) is constant, and .
Step 4 (posterior distribution at ). Calculate the posterior distribution aswhere and . If, then .
Step 5 (iterate). Set . If then stop; otherwise go to Step 1.
The proof of the onestep forecast and the posterior distribution can be found in [23]. Note that, for the univariate DLM, it has been shown that the covariance of system evolution needs to adapt to drastic system behavior changes or regime shift [23]. Regardless of this issue will make a serious prediction bias [12]. However, none of the existing studies propose any adaptive parameter estimation for to address this issue.
We specify three DLMs, i.e., firstorder DLM, cubic spline smoothing DLM, and secondorder DLM with increasing complexity based on the above DLM forecasting framework for travel speed prediction on a road network. The aim is to provide the benchmarks to compare with the performance of the proposed adaptive parameter updating DLM. The three DLMs are described as follows.
(a) FirstOrder DLM. This is the basic DLM which incorporates a mean level term and a Gaussian noisy term to describe system state evolution.
(b) Cubic Spline Smoothing DLM. This model extends the firstorder DLM by incorporating a local linear trend. The resulting system of equations is written as follows:
Equation (4) and
In terms of the quadruples of DLM, it is equivalent to
(c) SecondOrder DLM. This model extends the cubic spline smoothing DLM by introducing a second linear trend to model changes of the trend level. The secondorder DLM is described as follows:
Equations (4) and (7) and In our travel speed prediction context, is observed data of average link travel speed at time t. is the unknown average speed at time . is the trend of variation of averages. and are the corresponding error terms, respectively. Note that more complicated DLMs using a higherorder trend component or combining a systematic seasonal variation component and a regression component can also be specified.
3. Adaptive Parameter Updating for DLM
3.1. Adaptive DLM
We propose an adaptive parameter updating approach based on the firstorder DLM. We have two unknown parameters, i.e., and , to be estimated. The two parameters determine the predicted system states and influence the accuracy of prediction. To estimate the unknown model parameters, we can construct the likelihood function based on observed data as a function of unknown parameters. The maximum likelihood estimation approach is used to estimate the parameters [34]. The loglikelihood function is written as follows [33, 35]: where denotes the unknown parameters, i.e., . and are the variances and means of prediction at time (see (5)), respectively. The maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of parameters can then be obtained by solving the following optimization problemIn classical DLMs, the system parameters are constant regardless system regime changes. Fei et al. [19] proposed an intervention approach by adjusting the model error covariance based on anticipated changes from additional exterior information and/or expert’s knowledge. The drawback is expert’s adjustment might be trivial and lack a systemwide control based on the feedback of prediction errors.
Different with existing approach, we propose a twostage algorithm by first estimating initial parameters based on a training data set and then using an online adaptive parameter updating based on the feedback of onestep prediction errors. It is similar to feedback control to optimize the model parameters. The proposed twostage adaptive parameter updating approach is described as follows.
3.2. Online Adaptive Parameter Updating Approach
The proposed approach estimates the model parameters () based on historical data and adaptively optimizes its model parameters over time based on onestep model prediction errors. The approach is described as follows.
Step 1 (initial parameter estimation). (i)Estimate and : given input training data set D, compute MLE estimates of and . Get .(ii)Optimize : given , find the optimal signaltonoise ratio (i.e., ) as where is a loss function defined by the root mean square error. The optimal estimates of model error covariance for the training data set can then be obtained as .
Step 2 (online adaptive parameter updating). Set and and compute onestep forecast and prediction error based on (4)(6). Given a predefined tolerable threshold , update aswhere . is kept constant. Note that one can obtain without difficulty by the golden section search or the line search approach [36].
The online adaptive parameter updating approach is shown in Figure 1.
3.3. Measure Metrics for Assessing Prediction Accuracy
To measure the accuracy of prediction, two metrics are applied: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE); Mean Absolute Error (MAE). The first one computes the mean of squared error terms. The second one reports the mean of absolute errors. The definitions are as follows.
(a) Mean absolute error (MAE) measures the average magnitude of prediction errors by taking into account all observation equally. where is the total number of observation. and are the observation and prediction values of sample i, respectively.
(b) Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a secondorder measure for prediction errors. The RMSE is a kind of secondorder measure of prediction errors. Note MAE and RMSE provide similar measures for quantifying the model prediction errors. However, RMSE weights more to large errors providing more desired property when large errors are undesirable.
4. Experimental Study
4.1. Experimental Settings and Link Speed Data
We generate realistic travel speed data by microscopic traffic simulations implemented by SUMO [37], a widely used microscopic traffic simulation. The test area is selected from Luxembourg City and its surrounding areas [38, 39]. The travel speed data is collected from the simulator on 13 main road sections in Luxembourg City (Figure 2) in the morning peakhour period from 7:009:00. Link average travel speed is aggregated in a 5minute aggregation interval (i.e., ) as is the case for most realistic applications [40]. The data is freely available at https://github.com/pigne/2019simulationsDLM.
We consider two scenarios: normal traffic without accidents and traffic with an accident occurred during 7:308:00 on the Grand Duchess Charlotte Bridge (see Figure 2) connecting European Institution quarter and Luxembourg City center. Travel demand is generated based on the realistic LUST traffic demand scenarios for Luxembourg [41] which represents the daily mobility patterns of peoples working/living in the study area. We generate one training data set for initial DLM parameter estimation under normal traffic situation and one test data set under accident situations. The aim is to test the performance of the proposed adaptive parameter updating approach under unforeseen event. The generated traffic patterns are different from one day to another due to stochastic behavior of traffic.
The travel speed profiles on three road sections around the accidental site (road sections 3, 4, and 5) for normal and accidental scenarios are shown in Figure 3. In the normal traffic scenario, there are some frustrations on road section 3W and 4W (direction for Luxembourg City center). When an accident occurs (see the right part in Figure 3), traffic is heavily impacted on the road section 5 for both directions and on the road sections 3 and 4 to its east direction. We can find there is significant travel speed reduction on nearby roads due to the accident event. The numerical is executed by DLM Matlab Toolbox (https://mjlaine.github.io/dlm/) using a Dell Latitude E5470 laptop with win64 OS, Intel i56300U CPU, 2 Cores and 8GB memory.
4.2. Result
4.2.1. Initial Parameter Estimation of the Adaptive DLM
We use the MLE method to obtain an initial estimate of and based on the training data set, i.e., observations in the normal traffic scenario. The optimal signaltonoise ratio with a minimal RMSE value of the onestep forecast can be obtained (Figure 4). The RMSE values is a function of signaltonoise ratio which decreases at the beginning and then increases until a stable value when increasing the signaltonoise ratio. We estimate the optimal signaltonoise ratios and optimal model error covariance for each link. Figure 4 shows the firstorder DLM obtains best fits (i.e., lowest RMSE) compared to the secondorder DLM and the cubic spline smoothing DLM model. In normal traffic scenario, traffic speed presents small fluctuation for most of the time. The evolution function in the firstorder DLM captures smooth changes of mean state traffic evolution with best goodnessoffit. However, higherorder DLMs might overfit local trend resulting in higher prediction error.
Figure 5 reports the local trends of the DLMs with and without optimizing signaltonoise ratio to minimize the RMSE. We found that, after optimizing the signaltonoise ratio, the fitted Kalman filter smoother becomes more adaptive to observations (on the right side of Figure 5). The DLM Kalman filter smoother has smaller variance with MLE parameters. In terms of onestep forecast accuracy, the prediction accuracy is improved when applying the optimized signaltonoise ratio in the MLE models.
4.2.2. Online Adaptive Parameter Updating
We test the performance of the proposed approach to the traffic accident scenario. As we can see on Figure 2, when the traffic accident occurs, its upstream and downstream road sections, i.e., road sections 3, 4, and 5, would have significant impacts. Hence it would be interesting to investigate the performance of the proposed method on these road sections.
Table 1 shows the adaptive DLM significantly outperforms the other methods for the cases of major changes in traffic on road sections 3, 4, and 5. The average RMSE of the adaptive DLM over the road sections 3, 4, and 5 is 4.480, compared to the HW Exponential Smoothing method (4.612), AR(2) (4.653) and the three DLM approaches. It outperforms the simple onestep shift predictor (i.e., using observations at time t as predictors for t+1) in both accidental and normal traffic road sections. The values of the MAE measure claim the same conclusion. However, on the other road sections, the adaptive DLM performs similar well compared with the other approaches. The average execution of the adaptive DLM for each road section is 0.1082 second.

To illustrate the effectiveness of reducing prediction errors of the proposed method in case of major changes in traffic, we investigate two road sections which are significantly impacted by the accident, i.e., 4E and 5W. We can find travel speed quickly drop at about 7:40, and the traffic becomes fluid at about 8:05 on both road sections (see Figure 3, on the right). As shown in Figure 6 for road section 5W, the classical DLM with constant model parameters generates a quite biased onestep forecast due to such a sudden change (black line). However, the proposed method provides adaptive onestep forecasts during and after accidents (red line). The comparison of absolute errors obtained by the classical DLM and the adaptive DLM is shown on the right side of Figure 6. Figure 7 compares the performance of different DLM models for the road section 4E. The result shows the adaptive DLM model obtains more accurate prediction compared to the other DLM models. Figure 8 reports the profile of adaptive optimal signaltonoise ratios at each time step. We use the standard deviation of travel speed in the normal traffic scenario to estimate the tolerable threshold in (19).
5. Conclusions
In this study, we propose an online adaptive DLM algorithm for time series data analysis and forecasting. The proposed method is applied for shortterm travel speed forecasts in urban areas based on a microscopic traffic simulator. The experiments show the proposed method allows adaptively optimizing its model parameters to improve its prediction accuracy in a continuous way under uncertainty. The proposed method does not need the intervention of experts and can adjust its model error covariance automatically based on feedback information of its onestep prediction errors.
Experimental studies show that our adaptive DLM approach outperforms both autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and HoltWinters Exponential Smoothing (ETS) that are both considered to be the main time series analysis methods employed on this type of problems [28]. We thus consider that this comparison is a reasonable proxy to a comparison with other online models for travel speed prediction that use ARIMA or ETS.
Future extensions concern an adaptive parameter updating scheme design for the state space methods and for more complicated DLMs with seasonal and regression terms. Applications of the proposed method on other time series data would also be beneficial for assessing and improving its performance.
Notations
Index of discretized time intervals,  
:  System state at time 
:  Observation at time 
:  Observation error at time 
:  Variance of 
:  Design matrix for observation equation at time 
:  Evolution matrix of system states at time 
:  Forecast error at time 
:  Variance of . 
Data Availability
The data is freely available at https://github.com/pigne/2019simulationsDLM.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the support of Luxembourg Institute of SocioEconomic Research (LISER) under the visiting scholar grant.
References
 T. Ma, “Solving a dynamic useroptimal route guidance problem based on joint strategy fictitious play,” in Game Theoretic Analysis of Congestion, Safety and Security, pp. 67–89, Springer International Publishing, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 U. Mori, A. Mendiburu, M. Alvarez, and J. A. Lozano, “A review of travel time estimation and forecasting for advanced traveller information systems,” Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, vol. 11, pp. 119–157, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Oh, Y.J. Byon, K. Jang, and H. Yeo, “Shortterm traveltime prediction on highway: a review of the datadriven approach,” Transport Reviews, vol. 35, pp. 4–32, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Seo, A. M. Bayen, T. Kusakabe, and Y. Asakura, “Traffic state estimation on highway: A comprehensive survey,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 43, pp. 128–151, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. I. Vlahogianni, M. G. Karlaftis, and J. C. Golias, “Shortterm traffic forecasting: Where we are and where we are going,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 43, pp. 3–19, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. M. J. Tampere and L. H. Immers, “An extended Kalman filter application for traffic state estimation using CTM with implicit mode switching and dynamic parameters,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Wang, M. Papageorgiou, A. Messmer, P. Coppola, A. Tzimitsi, and A. Nuzzolo, “An adaptive freeway traffic state estimator,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 10–24, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Wang and M. Papageorgiou, “Realtime freeway traffic state estimation based on extended Kalman filter: a general approach,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 141–167, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Yang, Y. Xu, J. Han, E. Wang, W. Chen, and L. Yue, “Efficient traffic congestion estimation using multiple spatiotemporal properties,” Neurocomputing, vol. 267, pp. 344–353, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Fan, M. Herty, and B. Seibold, “Comparative model accuracy of a datafitted generalized AwRascleZhang model,” Networks and Heterogeneous Media, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 239–268, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Y. Chan, T. S. Dillon, J. Singh, and E. Chang, “Neuralnetworkbased models for shortterm traffic flow forecasting using a hybrid exponential smoothing and levenbergmarquardt algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 644–654, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Chen and C. L. Chen, “Ensemble learning approach for freeway shortterm traffic flow prediction,” in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, pp. 1–6, San Antonio, Tex, USA, April 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y.S. Jeong, Y.J. Byon, M. M. CastroNeto, and S. M. Easa, “Supervised weightingonline learning algorithm for shortterm traffic flow prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1700–1707, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. L. Smith, B. M. Williams, and R. K. Oswald, “Comparison of parametric and nonparametric models for traffic flow forecasting,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 303–321, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. CastroNeto, Y.S. Jeong, M.K. Jeong, and L. D. Han, “OnlineSVR for shortterm traffic flow prediction under typical and atypical traffic conditions,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 6164–6173, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. G. Habtemichael and M. Cetin, “Shortterm traffic flow rate forecasting based on identifying similar traffic patterns,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 66, pp. 61–78, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Salamanis, G. Margaritis, D. D. Kehagias, G. Matzoulas, and D. Tzovaras, “Identifying patterns under both normal and abnormal traffic conditions for shortterm traffic prediction,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 22, pp. 665–674, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Fei, Y. Zhang, K. Liu, and M. Guo, “Bayesian dynamic linear model with switching for realtime shortterm freeway travel time prediction with license plate recognition data,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 139, no. 11, pp. 1058–1067, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Fei, C. C. Lu, and K. Liu, “A bayesian dynamic linear model approach for realtime shortterm freeway travel time prediction,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1306–1318, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Kawasaki, Y. Hara, and M. Kuwahara, “Realtime monitoring of dynamic traffic states by statespace model,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 21, pp. 42–55, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Lu and X. Zhou, “Shortterm highway traffic state prediction using structural state space models,” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Technology, Planning, and Operations, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 309–322, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Stathopoulos and M. G. Karlaftis, “A multivariate state space approach for urban traffic flow modeling and prediction,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 121–135, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. West and J. Harrison, Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1997. View at: MathSciNet
 L. Auret and C. Aldrich, “Change point detection in time series data with random forests,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 990–1002, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Comert and A. Bezuglov, “An Online ChangePointBased Model for Traffic Parameter Prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1360–1369, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Daumer and M. Falk, “Online changepoint detection (for state space models) using multiprocess Kalman filters,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 284, no. 13, pp. 125–135, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Liu, M. Yamada, N. Collier, and M. Sugiyama, “Changepoint detection in timeseries data by relative densityratio estimation,” Neural Networks, vol. 43, pp. 72–83, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. MoreiraMatias and F. Alesiani, “Drift3Flow: freewayincident prediction using realtime learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 571, 566 pages, October 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Ruggieri and M. Antonellis, “An exact approach to Bayesian sequential change point detection,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 97, pp. 71–86, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. S. Page, “Continuous inspection schemes,” Biometrika, vol. 41, pp. 100–114, 1954. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 G. E. Box, G. M. Jenkins, G. C. Reinsel, and G. M. Ljung, Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control, WileyBlackwell, 2015.
 C. C. Holt, “Forecasting seasonals and trends by exponentially weighted moving averages,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5–10, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Durbin and S. J. Koopman, Time Series Analysis by State Space Methods, vol. 38, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  MathSciNet
 M. Hazewinkel, Ed.“Maximumlikelihood method,” in Encyclopedia of Mathematics, 2001, https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Maximumlikelihood_method. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Petris, S. Petrone, and P. Campagnoli, Dynamic Linear Models with R, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  MathSciNet
 J. Kiefer, “Sequential Minimax Search for a Maximum,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 502, 1953. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 SUMO, Simulation of Urban Mobility, 2018, https://www.dlr.de/ts/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid9883/16931_read41000/.
 Y. Pigne, G. Danoy, and P. Bouvry, “A platform for realistic online vehicular network management in,” in IEEE Globecom Workshops, pp. 595–599, IEEE, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Pigné, G. Danoy, and P. Bouvry, “A vehicular mobility model based on real traffic counting data,” in Communication Technologies for Vehicles, vol. 6596, pp. 131–142, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Liang and Y. Wakahara, “Realtime urban traffic amount prediction models for dynamic route guidance systems,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 85, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Codeca, R. Frank, and T. Engel, “Luxembourg SUMO traffic (LuST) scenario: 24 hours of mobility for vehicular networking research,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference, VNC 2015, pp. 1–8, Japan, December 2015. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 TaiYu Ma and Yoann Pigné. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.