2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC)
Maui, Hawaii, USA, November 4-7, 2018
A Deep Learning Approach for Traffic Incident Detection in Urban
Networks
Lin Zhu, Fangce Guo, Rajesh Krishnan, and John W. Polak

Abstract— Incident detection function is vital for traffic
control and management and is an important prerequisite for
quick restoration of smooth traffic flow in urban networks.
With accurate and reliable incident detection, a wide range of
environmental and economic benefits can be realised by
mitigating congestion quickly. This paper proposes a deep
learning method, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), for
automatic detection of traffic incidents in urban networks by
using traffic flow data. The method was evaluated using traffic
flow and incident datasets from Central London. Performance
indexes, such as False Positive Rate, Detection Rate, Precision
and F-measurement, are used to comprehensively evaluate the
performance of the proposed method in comparison with a
conventional machine learning method, i.e., Multi-Layer
Perceptron. The results demonstrate that the proposed method
may be superior to traditional neural networks with a higher
Detection Rate and a lower False Positive Rate. The results also
indicate that deep learning-based incident detection may
improve the accuracy of incident detection, especially in a large
urban network.
I. INTRODUCTION
Traffic urban road networks are often affected by
disruptions, such as accidents, inclement weather and road
works. With the restricted capacity of the roadway, these
anomalies give rise to congestion and traffic delays, which can
in turn create a wide range of negative impacts to the
economy, environment, safety and security [1]. The causes of
congestion and delay have been widely investigated in the past
decades. In general, congestion can be categorised into two,
namely recurrent and nonrecurrent congestion. The former
refers to the situation when traffic demand exceeds the road
capacity, while the latter is caused by unpredictable changes
and unexpected occurrences such as incidents, adverse
weather and special events [2]. Nonrecurrent congestion is
varied in terms of spatial and temporal dimensions, resulting
in more disruptive impacts on the economy and society than
that of recurrent congestion. Traffic incidents have proven to
be important factors that lead to lack of accessibility and
reliability [2]. These factors have resulted in copious amounts
of research in the area of traffic incident analysis and
management.
In the recent past, incident detection function has been
playing a key role in improving the reliability of transport
networks by helping to trigger quick incident response. Quick
incident response can reduce the severity of congestion and
the potential for secondary incidents. Thus, efficient and
accurate traffic incident detection and verification are vital in
reducing traffic jams, reducing the operational costs for
clearing incidents and recovering road network mobility.
The authors are with the Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College
London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. (e-mail: lin.zhu14@imperial.ac.uk).
978-1-7281-0323-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
While automatic incident detection algorithms have been
applied to tunnels as well as motorways, relatively less
research has been carried out for urban road systems where
these inherently complex traffic patterns and network
structure pose a research challenge [3]. Some challenges and
opportunities remain for accurately detecting traffic incidents
on urban networks. With recent advances in machine learning,
such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), it is possible
to develop methods that make use of spatially distributed
information from complex urban road networks.
The aim of this paper is to develop a deep learning based
method that can provide accurate incident detection on whole
road networks with complex traffic patterns rather than on
links or corridors.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In
Section II, we review relevant papers on revealing traffic
incidents, detection methods and deep learning algorithms.
Section III introduces the framework of the proposed deep
learning-based incident detection method. In section IV, we
present a case study of applying the proposed model to a
real-world dataset. We also discuss the implications and
insights gathered from the experiments. Finally, Section V
summarises key findings and discusses the potential
application of such a data-driven approach.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Traffic Incidents and Detection
As traffic incidents are main factors causing traffic jams, it
is of importance to detect incidents proactively as early as
possible in order to minimise the disruptive durations as well
as the associated negative impacts [4].
According to the UK Urban Traffic Management and
Control (UTMC) scheme, incidents can be divided into
planned and unplanned ones. The former incident includes the
planned incidents and road works while the latter one consists
of crash, hazard, stationary vehicle, flood, alert and
congestion. Data from Inductive Loop Detectors (ILD),
consisting of flow and occupancy, is typically used for
incident detection. The variation in these traffic variable is
indicative of deviation from normal traffic conditions [5].
Existing methods detect incidents by comparing the traffic
variable with a pre-defined threshold. With various traffic
conditions, a fixed threshold value is not suitable for all traffic
conditions [6].
In urban networks, traffic incidents in one corridor can
impact on the neighbouring corridors and even the whole
network. It is important to integrate the analysis in the spatial
level to improve the robustness and reliability of incident
detection. However, most research has been focused on the
1011
causes of incidents in the restricted link and but not a reliable
detection in the network. Furthermore, most efforts have been
devoted to detecting traffic incidents after that incidents have
already impeded the normal traffic [7]. Due to the fact of these
challenges, incident detection still remains as a difficult
problem.
B. Incident Detection Methods
Generally, incident detection is a branch of anomaly
detection which algorithms can be classified into six groups
according to their principles, and they are nearest neighbour
based algorithms, classification-based algorithms, statistical
detection algorithms, clustering based algorithms, information
theoretic anomaly detection and spectral anomaly detection
algorithms [8]. Among the family of anomaly detection
algorithm, classification-based algorithms are used to as
supervised models with labelled anomaly instances, while
other algorithms can be used as unsupervised learning without
labelled instances. Classification-based algorithms and
clustering-based algorithms are quite fast in the application
phase because each data point is evaluated based on a
pre-trained model or small size of clusters, while the rest of the
methods are generally slow in both training and testing phases
especially in training the neural networks [9].
There are two types of algorithms that can use ILDs data
for incident detection. The first type of detection algorithm
identifies an incident when the traffic pattern is similar to
those during an incident in the past by using pattern
recognition or learning algorithm, such as neural networks
[10]. This type of recognition algorithm also contains incident
detections based on fundamental diagrams of traffic flow and
occupancy, such as the McMaster algorithm [11]. The second
type contains algorithms that seek to identify specific outliers
or anomalies. These algorithms are based on comparing a
measured or estimated traffic state with a reference traffic
state and assigning an incident if the measurements deviate
significantly from the reference situation, or if these
differences significantly exceed a pre-defined threshold. The
estimation of traffic states and the definition of appropriate
thresholds are usually based on a combination of traffic flow
theory and statistical techniques [6]. For example, Yang et al.
[12] used a coupled Bayesian robust principal component
analysis approach to detect road traffic events based on data
from loop detectors.
The most common contexts for the development of this
type of incident detection algorithm are large urban corridors
[13] and interurban road networks [14]. In these contexts, the
link-based spatial structure is generally straightforward and
accordingly the methods have generally operated at the level
of individual links or corridors. However, to date, little efforts
have been focused on adding the factor of spatial correlations
among corridors to incident detection in which detection
algorithms can be used in a network level.
C. Deep Learning for Detection
Deep learning exploits multi-processing layers to learn the
relationship within the data by using back-propagation
algorithms, and provides better applications in dealing with
video, images, audio and speech [15]. Recently, considerable
efforts have been focused on the application of deep learning
to traffic related prediction and estimation problems. For
1012
example, Huang et al. [16] presented a Deep Belief Network
architecture for traffic flow detection. Duan et al. [17]
proposed a deep denoising stacked autoencoder to discover
the correlations contained in the whole data structure and
improved accuracy by conducting a fine-tuning for the traffic
missing data imputation problem. Wang et al. [18] used an
error-feedback recurrent CNN structure for continuous traffic
speed prediction as its ability to learn from prediction errors so
as to adapt for abrupt traffic anomalies. Ma et al. [19] recently
applied a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) method to
learn the traffic as an image with the aim to predict large-scale
and network-wide traffic speed taking account of
spatio-temporal traffic dynamics with a relatively high
accuracy. Deep learning methods, especially CNN, can
construct much deeper and sophisticated architectures than a
conventional method and they can therefore directly capture
the spatio-temporal traffic features and correlations in the
urban traffic network as a whole on a large scale rather in the
traditional isolated links or corridors [19].
CNN is a derivative of conventional multilayer neural
networks, which includes convolutional layers, sub-sampling
layers and fully connected layers [20]. CNN is designed to use
a form of 2D input such as images or speech signals, and this
2D input is able to incorporate the spatial information in the
raw input [21]. CNN is also easier to train as it benefits from
the convolution layer and sub-sampling with fewer parameters
compared with fully connected networks when the number of
hidden units is the same. Thanks to the locally-connected
convoluted layers, a CNN can capture complex spatial
correlations while its reduced parameters during the pooling
layer make CNN potentially applicable to large scale traffic
networks [22]. CNN has been used extensively in applications
involving complex spatial data and its ability to deal with
large-scale spatial structure suggests that it has the potential to
be used in the urban incident detection field to fill the gaps
mentioned above.
III. METHODOLOGY
The traffic information should be converted into a 2D
feature space as an input for a CNN. The generated 2D feature
is treated as a (RGB) channel of an image where each pixel in
the image presents the values in the 2D feature. So before
specifying a CNN architecture, a tensor extraction step is
necessary to translate this general framework into the specific
context of road traffic incident detection. The final results will
be evaluated based on confusion matrix including Detection
Rate (DR) and False Positive Rate (FPR), Precision and
F-Measurements. Fig. 1 shows the methodology framework.
A. Tensor Extraction
In order to implement the CNN, the time-series traffic flow
data from ILDs must be converted into a matrix which shares
the same pattern as that used to characterise general 2D
images. This takes the form of a Ni  Ri  Ci matrix where
N i is the number of colour channels while Ri and Ci are the
height and width of the input respectively.
The transformation between the natural formats of traffic
data and image data is not straightforward. Wang et al. [18]
and Ma et al. [19] converted network traffic into a time-space
image where the x-axis and y-axis present time and space of a

Figure 1. Methodology framework
matrix respectively. This transformation that directly
represents traffic variables with time and space may be
straightforward and efficient for simple structural corridors as
it is easy to rank the sequence of space. However, it is not
directly applicable in the case of urban traffic networks where
the spatial connections could significantly increase the
complexity to organise the traffic data in the form of a matrix.
An alternative way to carry out this translation for highly
connected urban networks is to use the concept of connectivity
matrix.
A connectivity matrix is a square matrix used to represent
the connection between nodes. Typically, it consists of two
steps: (1) given the original traffic network, node location and
flow direction, each cell representing a direct connection gets
an index of 1 while each cell that does not represent a direct
connection receives an index of 0; (2) assign the value of
traffic flow for the cell with index of 1 to the connectivity
matrix. Each time step corresponds to an updated connectivity
matrix with traffic flow values. The sample size is the number
of time steps in the whole simulation.
B. Deep Learning Model
After the feature translation using the connectivity matrix,
we defined the architecture of the CNN model to extract
spatial features in the connectivity matrix. There are three
main types of layers to build a CNN model: convolutional
layer, pooling layer and fully-connected layer.
The convolutional layer is the most important layer in a
CNN model [21]. The convolutional layer connects the input
connectivity matrix defined as x  pqq with a set of filters
1013
W  n pmm where p is the sample size, q is the size of the
input matrix and n is the number of convolutional filters. The
single convolutional layer is formulated as follows:
 f ( x;W , b)  h  {hk }k 1...n  
 hk  ReLU( x Wk  bk )  
where b  n is a bias for each filter output and  is the
convolution operator that applies on a single input and filter.
The output h  n(q m1)(q m1) is a set of feature maps
extracted by the convolutional layer. ReLU refers to Rectified
Linear Unit, which is a non-saturating activation
function f ( x)  max(0, x) that can capture the nonlinearities
of the neuron’s output [23]. Deep convolutional neural
networks with ReLU could be trained much faster than the
other equivalent activation functions, such as tanh
f ( x)  tanh( x) and sigmoid f ( x)  (1  e x )1 function [24].
A parameter sharing scheme is used in convolutional layers to
control the number of parameters.
Pooling layers in the CNN model summarise the outputs of
neighbouring groups of neurons in the same kernel map. A
max pooling technique, i.e., the most common pooling
strategy, performs a downsampling operation along the spatial
dimensions resulting in a smaller matrix with the maximum of
every values inside the kernel. An important function of
pooling layers is to progressively reduce the size of
representation by half and filter out the undesirable
composition of traffic flow data, and hence reduce the
overfitting.
The fully-connected layer is employed in the last stage of
hidden layers to control the dimension of final output. The
fully connected layer has full connections to all activations in
the previous layers. The activation in this layer consists of a
matrix multiplication followed by a bias offset. Then the
output will be transformed according to the specified
activation function.
A binary sigmoid crossentropy loss function is used as an
objective function to be minimised later during the training
phase. The loss function L for a binary classification can be
formed as follows.
 L  yˆ log( y )  (1  yˆ ) log(1  y ) 
i
i i i i 
RMSprop [25] serves as an optimiser to utilise the
magnitude of recent gradients in order to minimise the loss
function. It is used to keep a moving average of the squared
gradient for each weight and update the weight and bias in
each iteration during the optimisation.
Given the decay rate  and the learning rate  , the
parameters are updated as follows:
 rt   f (t 1 )2  (1   ) f (t )2  

 t 1  t  f (t )  
rt  
where f (t ) is the gradient or the derivative of the loss B. Tensor Extraction
function L with respect to the parameters  at time step t The image was generated using a connectivity matrix
and  is an error term. The learning rate is set to be 0.001 where the x-axis and y-axis represent the ILDs, and cells inside
with 0.9 decay in the CNN model. represent traffic flow values of detectors during time step t.
The generated matrix has a dimension of 237×237. The output
In order to avoid the problem of overfitting [26], a dropout of the models is a binary value: 1 for the presence of incidents
technique which consists of setting the output of each hidden and 0 for the absence of incidents. The dataset was divided
neuron to zero with a fixed probability is used. The into two: 80% for training and 20% for testing.
dropped-out neurons, therefore, do not participate in the
optimisation. Consequently, the neural network sub-samples a C. Model Configuration
different architecture, and all these architectures share weights Generally, every layer in a CNN model serves as a
[24]. As a neuron cannot depend on the presence of specific detection filter for features presented in the input data. The
other neurons, dropout reduces complex co-adaptations of first layer recognises the relatively obvious features; the later
neurons and hence forces the neuron to learn more robust layers gradually detect the more abstracted features while the
features. last layer of a CNN makes a specific classification based on all
features detected by previous layers.
C. Model Evaluation
Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) is used to compare with the
proposed CNN method. In order to comprehensively evaluate
the performance of the proposed models, four performance
indicators typically common for evaluating the accuracy of
classification problem are used. They are False Positive Rate
(FPR), Detection Rate (DR), Precision and F-measurements
calculated from True Negative (TN), True Positive (TP), False
Negative (FN) and False Positive (FP), shown in TABLE I.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Data Description
The proposed detection methods are tested using traffic
flow and traffic incident data from central London. The case
study area consists of 158 links while 39 links were affected
by 139 unplanned incident events during the study period from
1st Jan 2015 to 24th Mar 2015. The location of the study area
with incident heatmaps is shown in Fig. 2.
The traffic data are recorded by Inductive Loop Detectors
(ILDs). ILDs are widely used for providing inputs to the
SCOOT traffic control system [27]. They report vehicles
presence or absence (0/1 values) sampled at 4Hz at a fixed
location. Traffic variables such as flow and occupancy can be
calculated from the reported data and, and in this paper, traffic
flow data are aggregated into 5-min intervals between 00:00 (a)
and 23:55 every day for analysis.
Sample flow-occupancy plots and incidents are shown in
Fig. 3. Based on the pre-analysis of incident data, most
incidents occurred during the weekends with a moderate level
of severity.

TABLE I. PERFORMANCE INDEXES

Index Definition
TP
Precision Pre 
FP  TP
2
F measures F
1 precision  1 DR 
FP
FPR FPR  (b)
TN  FP
TP Figure 2. Study area and incident heatmaps: (a) study area with
DR DR  incident heatmap; and (b) London incident heatmap (Source:
FN  TP
OpenStreetMap)

1014
 with hyperparameters used in this paper is shown in Table II.
The Conv kernels are connected to all kernels in the previous
layer and ReLU activation function is used for the output of
every Conv layer and the first FC layer. The final FC layer is
fed to a softmax activation function to output the predicted
probability of the binary state.
MLP is set up with a hidden layer size of (20, 3) after using
stochastic gradient methods to minimise the loss function and
optimise weights and bias step by step during the training
process.
D. Results and Analysis
This experiment is to examine the accuracy of the
proposed CNN model used for automatic incident detection.
The results are shown in Table III. Notwithstanding the
(a) generally good performance of both the proposed CNN model
and MLP alternatives in the classification of traffic incidents,
the CNN statistically significantly performed better in terms of
2.3% higher DR, 0.77% lower FPR, 2.9% higher precision and
2.6% higher F-measurements when p=0.05 for the test statistic
pˆ1  pˆ 2 n pˆ  n pˆ
z where pˆ  1 1 2 2 , pˆ i is the value
1 1 n1  n2
pˆ (1  pˆ )(  )
n1 n2
of performance index and ni is the sample size. These results
mean that the CNN is potential for reliably detecting traffic
outliers with less mistaken flags (i.e., false positives and
negatives). Although, a large number of parameters are
essential to configure the CNN, it exhibits effective detection
compared to the benchmark. This superior detection suggests
(b) that spatial correlations may exist among neighbouring
Figure 3. Plots of ILD and incident data: (a) relationship between corridors and the CNN can learn these complex correlations
flow and occupancy; and (b) incident occurrences in terms of day of correctly.
week
TABLE II. MODEL CONFIGURATION

There are two types of parameters considered when No. Layer Filter Size, Stride Output
designing the structure of a CNN, the hyperparameters Input - 237 × 237 × 1*
connected with each layer and the depth of the CNN [19]. The Conv 3 × 3, 1 236 × 236 × 32
1
ReLU - 236 × 236 × 32
selection of hyperparameters, i.e., max pooling kernel size and Max-Pool 2 × 2, 1 118 × 118 × 32
convolutional filter size, relies heavily on expert judgement. Conv 3 × 3, 1 116 × 116 × 64
As no general rules can be used to determine the optimal 2 ReLU - 56 × 56 × 64
hyperparameters, parameters of well-known CNN Max-Pool 2 × 2, 1 58 × 58 × 64
architectures, such as AlexNet [24] and LeNet [26], can be Conv 3 × 3, 1 56 × 56 × 64
used as reasonable values. The max pooling size 2×2 which 3 ReLU - 56 × 56 × 64
Max-Pool 2 × 2, 1 28 × 28 × 64
has been adopted widely in both the AlexNet and the LeNet-5 Conv 5 × 5, 1 24 × 24 × 64
is selected in this paper because it is a typical pooling kernel 4 ReLU - 24 × 24 × 64
shape to reduce the size of feature maps effectively. The Max-Pool 2 × 2, 1 12 × 12 × 64
kernel size 3×3 and 5×5 are used for the proposed Conv 3 × 3, 1 10 × 10 × 64*
convolutional layers as these sizes can generally decrease the 5 ReLU - 5 × 5 × 64
number of parameters in addition to multiple applications of Max-Pool 2 × 2, 1
FC - 64
ReLU layers [28]. 6
ReLu+Drop - 64
On the other hand, the depth of CNN should not be either FC - 1
7
Softmax - 1
too deep or too shallow, so that CNN can efficiently learn the
complex spatial structure while ensuring convergence in the *. Using zero padding for achieving spatial dimension of outputs
end [19]. However, as the size will be reduced substantially
TABLE III. RESULTS OF INCIDEENT DETECTION MODELS
during convolution and pooling, the depth of CNN in this
study is constrained by the input size (237×237) of the image Indexes CNN MLP CNN2
as well as the kernel size (2 × 2) of pooling layers which Detection Rate (DR) 86.6% 84.3% 85.2%
reduce the image by half at each step, and thus the final net False Positive Rate (FPR) 5.12% 5.89% 5.63%
contains 7 layers including 5 convolutional (Conv) layers and Precision 90.4% 87.5% 88.1%
2 Fully-Connected (FC) layers. The detailed CNN architecture F-Measurements 88.5% 85.9% 86.6%

1015
 TABLE III also shows the results of another CNN model
consisting of Conv kernel sizes ([7 × 7, 11 × 11]) with the
same CNN configuration to study their capabilities to extract
spatial features. The result shows that the performance
decreases in a statistically significant manner (at p=0.05) with
the size of Conv kernel, which reflects that the traffic incidents
are moderate with small queue sizes and a kernel size of 3 × 3
or 5 × 5 has enough spatial coverage to capture capacity drops
during incidents.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented a network-level incident
detection model based on the CNN architecture. The proposed
model can be used for incident detection in large urban
networks where the spatial correlation is a significant factor.
Time-series traffic data are extracted into tensors using the
connectivity matrix to retain the spatial correlations in the
network before imputing them into the proposed model. In
order to evaluate the performance of the new approach, we
tested it to detect traffic incidents with traffic data and incident
data collected from Central London, and compared it with an
established alternative method, i.e., MLP, using DR, FPR,
precision and F-measurements. The results indicate that the
proposed deep-learning based detection model outperforms
the benchmark with high DR, Precision and F-measurement
scores and with fewer false alarms. This comparison of the
CNN method with an established method from the literature
indicates that deep neural network methods, such as the CNN
algorithm, are capable of achieving accurate network-level
traffic incident detection for a large-scale networks.
Future studies will focus on precisely locating traffic
incidents on the network and classifying traffic incidents
based on the level of severity and incident types. Future
research will also look at traffic state classification and
distinguish traffic incidents from other types of traffic
anomalies, such as sensor faults and recurrent traffic
congestion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Transport for London
(TfL), particularly Andy Emmonds and Ashley Turner, for the
provision of traffic flow and incident data used in this paper.
The authors would like to also thank Dr Aruna Sivakumar
from Centre for Transport Studies of Imperial College London
for her valuable comments and suggestions to improve the
quality of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Gu, Z. Qian, and F. Chen, “From Twitter to detector: Real-time
traffic incident detection using social media data,” Transp. Res.
Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 67, pp. 321–342, 2016.
[2] O. Deniz and H. B. Celikoglu, “Overview to some existing incident
detection algorithms: a comparative evaluation,” Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci., pp. 1–13, 2011.
[3] F. Ahmed and Y. E. Hawas, “A threshold-based real-time incident
detection system for urban traffic networks,” Procedia-Social
Behav. Sci., vol. 48, pp. 1713–1722, 2012.
[4] J. A. Barria and S. Thajchayapong, “Detection and classification of
traffic anomalies using microscopic traffic variables,” IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 695–704, 2011.
[5] R. Rossi, M. Gastaldi, G. Gecchele, and V. Barbaro, “Fuzzy
logic-based incident detection system using loop detectors data,”
Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 10, pp. 266–275, 2015.
[6] Y.-S. Jeong, M. Castro-Neto, M. K. Jeong, and L. D. Han, “A
1016
wavelet-based freeway incident detection algorithm with adapting
threshold parameters,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol.
19, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2011.
[7] R. N. Mussa and J. E. Upchurch, “Simulation assessment of
incident detection by cellular phone call-in programs,”
Transportation (Amst)., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 399–416, 1999.
[8] E. Parkany and C. Xie, “A complete review of incident detection
algorithms & their deployment: what works and what doesn’t,”
2005.
[9] V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar, “Anomaly detection: A
survey,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 41, no. 3, p. 15, 2009.
[10] J. Lu, S. Chen, W. Wang, and H. Van Zuylen, “A hybrid model of
partial least squares and neural network for traffic incident
detection,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 4775–4784, 2012.
[11] F. L. Hall, Y. Shi, and G. Atala, “On-line testing of the McMaster
incident detection algorithm under recurrent congestion,” Transp.
Res. Rec., no. 1394, pp. 1–7, 1993.
[12] S. Yang, K. Kalpakis, and A. Biem, “Detecting road traffic events
by coupling multiple timeseries with a nonparametric bayesian
method,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15, no. 5, pp.
1936–1946, 2014.
[13] Y. Cheng, M. Zhang, and D. Yang, “Automatic incident detection
for urban expressways based on segment traffic flow density,” J.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 205–213, 2015.
[14] Q. Zeng and H. Huang, “Bayesian spatial joint modeling of traffic
crashes on an urban road network,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 67, pp.
105–112, 2014.
[15] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol.
521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015.
[16] W. Huang, G. Song, H. Hong, and K. Xie, “Deep architecture for
traffic flow prediction: Deep belief networks with multitask
learning,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15, no. 5, pp.
2191–2201, 2014.
[17] Y. Duan, Y. Lv, W. Kang, and Y. Zhao, “A deep learning based
approach for traffic data imputation,” 17th Int. IEEE Conf. Intell.
Transp. Syst., pp. 912–917, 2014.
[18] J. Wang, Q. Gu, J. Wu, G. Liu, and Z. Xiong, “Traffic speed
prediction and congestion source exploration: A deep learning
method,” Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining, ICDM, pp.
499–508, 2017.
[19] X. Ma, Z. Dai, Z. He, J. Ma, Y. Wang, and Y. Wang, “Learning
traffic as images: A deep convolutional neural network for
large-scale transportation network speed prediction,” Sensors, vol.
17, no. 4, p. 818, 2017.
[20] K. Fukushima, “Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network
model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift
in position,” Biol. Cybern., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 193–202, 1980.
[21] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and H. Geoffrey E., “ImageNet
Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks,” Adv.
Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, pp. 1097–1105, 2012.
[22] A. Karpathy, G. Toderici, S. Shetty, T. Leung, R. Sukthankar, and
F. F. Li, “Large-scale video classification with convolutional
neural networks,” Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis.
Pattern Recognit., pp. 1725–1732, 2014.
[23] V. Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted
boltzmann machines,” Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., no. 3,
pp. 807–814, 2010.
[24] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet
classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Adv.
Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pp. 1097–1105, 2012.
[25] Tieleman, Tijmen, and G. Hinton, “Lecture 6.5-RMSprop: Divide
the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude,” in
COURSERA: Neural networks for machine learning, 2012, pp.
26–31.
[26] D. M. Hawkins, “The Problem of Overfitting,” J. Chem. Inf.
Comput. Sci., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2004.
[27] D. I. Robertson and R. D. Bretherton, “Optimizing Networks of
Traffic Signals in Real Time—The SCOOT Method,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., 1991.
[28] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very Deep Convolutional
Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition,” ImageNet Chall.,
pp. 1–10, 2014.