An Intelligent Coordinated Traffic Signal Control Based on EVALPSN

Kazumi Nakamatsu1 , Jair M. Abe2 , and Seiki Akama3
University of Hyogo. Himeji, Hyogo Japan nakamatu@shse.u-hyogo.ac.jp 2 Paulista University. Sao Paulo, SP-Brazil jairabe@uol.com.br 3 Kawasaki. Kanagawa, Japan sub-akama@jcom.home.ne.jp
1

Abstract. We introduce a coordinated traffic signal control method based on EVALPSN. The simulation results of the EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control method are shown with comparing to conventional ones. Keywords: EVALPSN(Extended Vector Annotated Logic Program with Strong Negation), traffic signal control, paraconsistent annotated logic program, defeasible deontic reasoning.

1

Introduction

We have proposed a paraconsistent annotated logic program called EVALPSN (Extended Vector Annotated Logic Program) that can deal with defeasible deontic reasoning and paraconsistency [1]. Some applications of EVALPSN to various kinds of control and safety verification, robot action control, discrete event control, and safety verification for railway interlocking and air traffic control have been introduced [3,4]. Traffic jam caused by inappropriate traffic signal control is a serious environmental issue that we have to overcome. Conventionally, traffic signal control is divided into three kinds, single, coordinated and broad area ones according to the number of traffic signals to be controlled. In single traffic signal control each traffic light is controlled independently. On the other hand, in coordinated one a series of traffic lights on the same route are controlled. Recently an optimizing method for traffic signal control by Genetic Algorithm has been proposed and applied practically. However, the method takes a long time to compute optimal solutions and is not so appropriate for real-time control. We have already proposed an intelligent real-time single traffic signal control system based on EVALPSN and shown that it could reduce the traffic density 10% to 15% by simulation [2]. In this paper, we extend the idea of EVALPSN single traffic signal
B. Apolloni et al. (Eds.): KES 2007/ WIRN 2007, Part II, LNAI 4693, pp. 869–876, 2007. c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

4 to detect traffic density or flowing traffic. → all red → green → yellow → all red → T1. Based on this control policy the traffic signal is controlled in real-time by defeasible deontic reasoning in EVALPSN. 2. On the other hand.2. Then.3. 2 Traffic Signal Control in EVALPSN First of all we suppose a basic traffic signal control policy that traffic lights treating a larger amount of traffic should have the priority to be green until reducing the traffic density. J.1. Akama Control Direction ← S3 SC2 S2 T4 T2 T1 T3 S4 S1 SC1 Fig. Abe. In single traffic signal control.1 as the object of the single traffic signal control.2. and they have the following signal chart.1 Single Traffic Signal Control We take a series of three typical intersections in Japan as described in Fig. there is a conflict between the permission and forbiddance. Nakamatsu. We assume that: the middle intersection has four traffic lights T1.3.2 → red → red → all red → T3. The first demand can be regarded as permission for turning the light from red to green and the second one can be regarded as forbiddance from turning the traffic light from green to yellow or red.870 K. you must have a demand for turning the traffic light from red to green in your mind. yellow and all red terms are fixed . yellow and red.4 . if you are driving through the intersection with green you must have a demand for keeping the traffic light green. green.4 → green → yellow → all red → red → red the intersection has four sensors S1. 1.1. Then. each one has three kinds of displays. Intersections in Japan control to coordinated one and propose an EVALPSN based coordinated traffic signal control system. and S. The basic idea of EVALPSN traffic signal control is to resolve such conflicts by EVALPSN defeasible deontic reasoning. we focus on only the middle intersection among the three ones in Fig. Suppose that you are waiting for the traffic light turning from red to green at an intersection. which are described as white boxes in Fig.M. We will formalize the traffic signal control in defeasible deontic formulas firstly and translate them into EVALPSN later.

if one of the sensors S3. t). the permission for turning the traffic lights T3. Then. Basically. 1.q are called the prerequisites and consequents of the rules A → p and B ⇒ q.2 (t) ∧ T1. (1) rg where. the forbiddance from turning the traffic lights T3.2 (t) denotes that one of the sensors S1. we introduce defeasible reasoning briefly. rg S1. rg S3. t) ⇒ ¬T3. For example. the minimum and maximum lengths of green term are given in advance. (2) .4 are red and green. In the EVALPSN traffic signal control.4 are red and green at the time t. thus.4 from green to yellow should be derived.2 (r. two kinds of rules. t) ∧ T3.4 from green to yellow should be derived. t) ∧ T3. If one of the sensors S1. and the conflict between the permission and forbiddance should be resolved by EVALPSN defeasible deontic reasoning. T1. Defeasible Deontic Rules for Single Traffic Signal Control. t) denote that the traffic lights is T1.4 (y. then the rule R2 defeats the rule R1 and only the consequent ¬p of the defeasible rule R2 is derived.4 (g. where A. t). if the sensor S1 detects flowing traffic. the green term of the traffic light T1 should be extended within the range between the minimum and maximum terms. For example.4 detects the flowing traffic over the criterion at the time t. The details are found in [5]. we will formalize the traffic signal control in defeasible deontic formulas and translate them into EVALPSN. t) ⇒ ¬ ¬T3. that is to say. 2. S1.4 (g.2 and T3. Firstly. and both a and b hold. the flowing traffic or traffic density of each road connected to the intersection are regarded as the forbiddance or permission for turning the object traffic light from green to yellow. On the other hand. Defeasible reasoning is carried out based on the superiority relations between defeasible rules. respectively.2 (r. As the first step. respectively. green term must be controlled between the minimum and maximum terms.B and p. Strict rules are used for deriving facts and superior to defeasible rules. Now we will start formalizing the single traffic signal control for the middle intersection in defeasible deontic formulas.An Intelligent Coordinated Traffic Signal Control Based on EVALPSN 871 and only green term is variably controlled according to the traffic detected by the sensors. and the symbol a modal operator to denote obligation. if there is the superiority relation R1 < R2. This condition is represented by the defeasible rule. Then.4 (y. the following conditions should be considered as strict or defeasible rules. a strict rule A → p and a defeasible rule B ⇒ q are used. respectively.2 and T3.4 (t) ∧ T1. the symbols ¬ ¬ and ¬ denote permission and forbiddance.2 detects the traffic density over the criterion at the time t.2 (r. Suppose that there are conflicting defeasible rules: R1: a ⇒ p and R2: b ⇒ ¬p. We suppose that the traffic lights T1. respectively. we have the defeasible rule conflicting to the defeasible rule (1). t) and T3.2 detects traffic density more than the criterion at the time t.4 (g.

4 should be guaranteed its minimum length. (4) There are conflicting defeasible rules (1) and (2) whose consequents are permission and forbiddance.2 is 2 hours but that of T3. t) → T2 (r. if the forbiddance is defeasibly derived at the time t.2.3. Minimum Green Term Rule. it is forbidden from the traffic light turning from green to yellow. Let M INi (g. t) → T1 (r. the defeasible rule (2) is considered to be superior to the defeasible rule (1). (5) (6) Moreover. if it is obligatory that the traffic light T1 is red at the time t. 3. the traffic light T1 must be red at the same time.4 (g. t) → T3. These conditions can be represented by the following strict rules : T3.3.4 (y.4 (g. This rule can be represented by the strict rules. On the other hand.4 (g. (3) Maximum Green Term Rule.4 (g. T3.4 also should have its maximum term. As the defeasible reasoning result.872 K. Such synchronization is represented by the following strict rules. If we take only the defeasible rules (1) and (2) into account. and if it is obligatory that the traffic light T3 is green at the time t. t) → ¬T3.. M IN3. Then we have a rule : if the green time is longer than its maximum term at the time t. which are represented by the following definite rules. 2. J. Each green term of the traffic lights T1. t) → ¬ ¬T3. the traffic light has to be turned from green to yellow at the next time t + 1. the signal has to keep the current state at the next time t + 1. we will translate the strict and defeasible rules into EVALPSN. t) ∧ T3. In order to avoid such an extreme control. t) ∧ ¬T3. t) and T3 (g. t) (7) EVALPSN for Single Traffic Signal Control.4 from green to yellow is prior to the permission for it. we need some more strict rules for synchronizing all the traffic lights. 4}) denote that the green time of the traffic light Ti has not passed its minimum term at the time t. t + 1). t). t + 1). (i ∈ {1.4 (y. Then we have a rule : if the green time is shorter than its minimum term at the time t. t) ∧ ¬ ¬T3. 4}) denotes that the green time of the traffic light Ti has already passed its maximum term at the time t. that is to say. Akama We also have to define the superiority relation (<) between the defeasible rules (1) and (2).4 (y.4 (y. t) ∧ T3. As we assume that maintaining the current signal state is superior to turning it to the next signal state.4 (g. Nakamatsu.M.4 (g. we have to control green term in an appropriate range. The strict and defeasible rules can be . For example. Now. We need more traffic signal control rules. if the permission is derived at the time t. T1 (r. Abe. t). t). 3. Let M AXi (g. the traffic light T2 also must be red at the same time. we might have an extreme situation such that the green term of T1.4 (g. M AX3.4 (y. This rule can be represented by the strict rules.4 is 1 minute. (i ∈ {1. t). it is definitely permitted for the traffic light turning from green to yellow. and S. Each green term of the traffic lights T1. 2.2. the forbiddance from turning the traffic lights T3. t) → T3.

1). γ] → T3.4 (y. β].2 are red and the traffic lights T3.4 are green. β].4 are forbidden for turning to yellow.4 (g. the minimum green term has already passed. Case-1. α] ∧ ∼ M AX3.1 as an example. t + 1) : [(2. t) : [(2. 0).4 (y. 2. and the rest of the sensors do not detect then.4 (g. (12) T3. (9) The EVALPSN clause (8) represents that: if the traffic sensors S1 or S2 have detected the traffic density over the criterion.2 (r. 0).4 are green. t + 1) : [(2. The defeasible rules (1) and (2) are translated into the EVALPSN clauses. α] → T3. β] is derived.4 (y. α] → T3.4 (g.4 (g. t) : [(0. t) : [(2. 1). If one of the sensors S1. α] ∧ T3. 0). and the maximum green term has not passed yet under the same condition that the traffic lights T3. 0). α] ∧ T3. t) : [(0.4 (g. furthermore. (10) M AX3. α] ∧ T3. 0). 1). 0). Suppose that the traffic lights T1. 1). Similarly. α] ∧ T3. γ]. t) : [(2.4 (g. γ] is derived.4 (y. the EVALPSN clause (12) is also fired and the obligation T3. t) : [(2. t + 1) : [(2. α]∧ ∼ S rg 4 (t) : [(2.4 (y. 0). then the traffic lights T3.4 (t) : [(2. β] → T3. t) : [(2.4 (y. On the other hand.2 (t) : [(2. 0). furthermore. and the traffic sensors neither S3 nor S4 has detected the flowing traffic over the criteria at the time t under the condition that the traffic lights T3.4 (y.4 (g. 0). 2).4 (g.4 are permitted for turning to yellow. γ]. t) : [(0.2 (r. 0). 0). α] ∧ ∼ M IN3. 0). β].4 (y. 0). the EVALPSN clause (8) is fired and the permission T3. are also translated into the EVALP clauses.4 (g.4 (y. it has already passed the minimum green term then. t) : [(2. t) : [(0. If both the sensors S1 and S3 detect the traffic density and flowing traffic over the criteria at the time t. the EVALPSN clause (13) is also fired and the obligation T3. t) : [(2. the EVALPSN clause (9) represents that: if the traffic sensors S3 or S4 have detected the flowing traffic over the criterion.2 Coordinated Traffic Signal Control We show the basic idea of the EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control with taking the same intersections in Fig. furthermore. (11) T3. α] ∧ T1.4 (g. α]∧ ∼ S rg 3 (t) : [(2. β]. 0). t) : [(0. the strict rules (3). S rg 3. 0). α] → T3.4 are green. t) : [(0. t) : [(2. α] ∧ T3. 2). then the traffic lights T3. (4). respectively.4 (y. t) : [(2. 1). 0). 1). Case-2. t) : [(2. (5) and (6). t) : [(2.2 detects the traffic density over the criterion at the time t and the rest of the sensors do not react then. 0). Here we focus on only the traffic from the right to the left and its converse direction as the object of the . 0). t + 1) : [(2.An Intelligent Coordinated Traffic Signal Control Based on EVALPSN 873 translated by formalizing their semantics in EVALPSN. β] is also derived. α] → T3. S rg 1. (13) (8) Example 1. M IN3. the EVALPSN clause (9) is fired and the forbiddance T3. 0). t) : [(0. 0). t) : [(0. β] is also derived.4 (g.4 (g. α] ∧ T1. t) : [(2. α] ∧ T3.

4 (y. Nakamatsu. that is to say. 0). t) : [(0. not only each term of green. 0). α] ∧ ∼ S rg 4 (t) : [(2. α] ∧ ∼ M IN3. Scrg (t) ∧ T1.2 (r.(2) < (14). α] ∧ T3. we have the defeasible rule. (14) where Scrg (t) denotes that one of the sensors Sc1.2 and T3. α]∧ ∼ Scrg 1 (t) : [(2. γ].4 (t) : [(2.2 is processed. 1). If one of the sensors Sc1 or Sc2 detects flowing traffic over the criteria at the time t..2 . We assume the same condition as the single traffic signal control. β]. On the other hand.4 (g. Abe. Then. those defeasible rules are retranslated into the EVALPSN clauses.4 from green to yellow should be derived. t) ⇒ ¬ 1. t) : [(2. only the green term of each coordinated traffic light should be controlled by EVALPSN defeasible deontic reasoning based on traffic amount information. the permission for turning the traffic lights T3. t) : [(2. Therefore.e. α]∧ ∼ Scrg 2 (t) : [(2. J. Akama EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control. we have the following conditions in defeasible deontic formulas. t) : [(0. 0). Then.2 detects the flowing traffic 1.2 described by black boxes in Fig. In conventional coodinated traffic signal control. (16) (15) . As the coordinately controlled route traffic from the right to the left or its converse are regarded to be superior to other traffic. that is to say the traffic lights T1. 0).874 K. and S. 3. 0).2 (r. the permission for turning the traffic lights T3. 0). 0). respectively. 1). Defeasible Deontic Rules for Coordinated Traffic Signal Control.4 (y. α]∧ ∼ S rg 3 (t) : [(2. (1) < (2) < (14) into account.. t). we note that when the traffic information detected by the remote sensors Sc1. yellow and red but also a timelag called an off set between two neighbor traffic lights are controlled. the extra traffic sensors Sc1. 0). t) : [(2.e. t) : [(2.2 (t) : [(2. t) ∧ T3. which is detected by traffic sensors attached to not only the object intersection but also its both neighbor intersections.2 over the criterion.2 (r. α] ∧ ∼ M AX3. (2) and (14). t) : [(2. Moreover.4 (g. α] ∧ T3.4 (y. i. S rg 1. and they should be preinstalled. α] ∧ T1. 0).2 ¬T3. α] → T3. the defeasible rule (14) is considered to be superior to the defeasible rule (2). i. EVALPSN for Coordinated Traffic Signal Control. in EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control. 0). 0). S rg 3. when we consider the EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control in terms of the middle intersection. Taking the superiority relations among the defeasible rules (1).M. We also need to consider the superiority relation between the conflicting defeasible rules (2) and (14). appropriate timelags between the detection and processing of the traffic information should be taken into account according to the distances between the object intersection and the sensors Sc1. 0). α] → T3.4 are red and green.4 (g.4 (g.4 from green to yellow has a prior to the forbiddance from it.1 attached to the right and left intersections should be taken into account to detect the traffic flowing into the middle intersection. α] ∧ T1. t) : [(2.4 (g.

If one of the sensors Sc1. γ] is derived. (11). therefore. the EVALPSN clause (12) is also fired and the obligation T3. the green term is 60 steps. where 15% probability means 15 cars/100 steps appear at the road. t) : [(0. the EVALPSN clause (17) is fired and the permission T3. 0).4 (g.2 and Sc1. t + 1) : [(2. respectively. the EVALPSN clause (17) is fired and the permission T3. t) : [(2. (17) As well as the EVALPSN single traffic signal control the coordinated one also has Minimum and Maximum Green Term Rules. and EVALPSN coordinated ones for the intersections in Fig. Example 2.An Intelligent Coordinated Traffic Signal Control Based on EVALPSN 875 Scrg 1. Case-5. the green term is between 14(min) and 60(max) steps. cars are flowing into all the intersections from each road in 10% probability except for the traffic from the right road.4 (y. t + 1) : [(2. α] ∧ T3. (12). Case-3. α] ∧ T1. We have assumed the following conditions for simulation: the unit time called “step” is defined in the simulation system. EVALPSN single. γ] is derived. 0). If all the sensors S1. conventional (fixed time) single. both the EVALPSN clauses (15) and (17) are fired and the same permission T3. 0). “travel step” denotes the total number of steps . α] ∧ ∼ M IN3. 0). β] is also derived.4 (y.2 detect the traffic density and flowing traffic over the criteria at the time t. t) : [(0.4 (y.2 detect the flowing traffic or traffic density over the criteria at the time t. (13) as the translation of those rules. for EVALPSN traffic signal control. γ] is derived. 0). and there are 5000 steps/hour in fact.“stop step”denotes the total number of steps that the 50 cars stopped.4 (g.2 (t) : [(2.4 and Sc1. furthermore. which is 15%. respectively. 1).4 (y. t) : [(0. furthermore. furthermore. t) : [(0. t + 1) : [(2. All the four kinds of simulation have been carried out during 5000 steps each and repeated ten times. respectively.2. 0).2 (r. 0). each distance between the three intersections is the same 20 cells. we also have the EVALPSN clauses (10). the EVALPSN clause (12) is also fired and the obligation T3.4 (y. t) : [(2.1 by the cellular automaton simulation method. 1). and the off-set in the coordinated traffic signal control is 24 steps. t) : [(2. for fixed-time traffic signal control.4 (y. If the sensors S1. Case-4.4 (y. We took the simulation data of 50 cars that are chosen at random among all the cars flowing into the intersections from the right and traveling to the left.3. γ]. β] is also derived. the EVALPSN clause (12) is also fired and the obligation T3. the yellow term is 3 steps. which is the time that a car travels one cell to the next cell. and the yellow term is fixed 5 steps. β] is also derived. 3 Simulation We present the simulation results of the four kinds of traffic signal control. Suppose the same conditions as Example 1. coordinated. α] → T3. where “total car” denotes the total number of cars that flowed into all the three intersections from any road.1 show the average values of the ten times simulation results. 1).2 and the sensor S4 detect the flowing traffic over the criteria at the time t. 1). The simulation data in Tab.

: Annotated Semantics for Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Oxford Science Publications. Nute. Nakamatsu. Szczuka. M. References 1. J. W.. Heidelberg (2003) 3. Mita. Abe.. 719–723.: A Discrete Event Control ´ Based on EVALPSN Stable Model Computation.M. 4 Conclusion We have introduced a coordinated traffic signal control method based on an annotated logic program EVALPSN and its computer simulation results by the cellular automaton method. J. vol. vol. K. A.. S-L. and S. lots of sensor installation are required and too much cost. Q. 2005.F. Simulation Results Fixed-time Single Fixed-time Coordeinated EVALPSN Single EVALPSN Coordinated total car 3804 3823 4149 4169 stop step 66 65 43 34 travel step 177 173 152 122 travel car 495 500 577 607 for the 50 cars having traveled from the right to the left. 671– u 681. Nakamatsu.M. pp. In: Ziarko. J. LNCS (LNAI). In: Slezak. pp. LNCS (LNAI)... Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing 13. T. H. Y. In: del Cerro. Nakamatsu.) Intensional Logics for Programming. LNCS (LNAI). Springer. Abe. “travel car” denotes the total number of cars that traveled from the right up to the left. 3641.. Springer. Heidelberg (2005) 4.. (eds. since each traffic light is controlled independently as one autonomous agent in the EVALPSN coordinated traffic signal control. Skowron..M. D¨ ntsch. and especially EVALPSN coordinated control is most efficient among them. pp. Shibata. Chung.. Yao. Oxford (1992) . K. Abe. Y. D. Komaba. K. EVALPSN control can be implemented in both existent software and hardware such as PLC(Programmable Logic Controller). it is more fault tolerant than conventional coordinated one. vol. A. Y. (eds. Wang. 2639.. This simulation results clearly say that: EVALPSN traffic signal control shows more efficient results than conventional fixed time one in both single and coordinated traffic signal control methods. 126–154. Heidelberg (2001) 2. M.: An Intelligent Action Control System Based on Extended Vector Annotated Logic Program and its Hardware Implementation. Yao. D. Yao. (eds. (eds.) RSCTC 2000. Suzuki. 470–478. Seno. K. Suzuki..: Intelligent Real-time Traffic Signal Control Based on a Paraconsistent Logic Program EVALPSN. G. Nakamatsu.: Basic Defeasible Logic. Liu.. L. Nakamatsu...) RSFDGrC 2003..) RSFDGrC 2005.876 K. G. The EVALPSN traffic control is a sensor based realtime one and more efficient than conventional ones from the simulation results. 289–304 (2007) 5. pp. In: Wang. although it has not been addressed in this paper. I.. Penttonen. A. if it is implemented practically.. Suzuki.. Springer. however. Akama Table 1. T. A. Y..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful