Fuzzy Logic Models of Gap-Acceptance Behavior at Roundabouts

  • Riccardo Rossi
  • Massimiliano Gastaldi
  • Gregorio Gecchele
  • Claudio Meneguzzer
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 262)


Gap-acceptance behavior at intersections has been extensively studied in the field of traffic theory and engineering using various methods. An interesting application of gap-acceptance theory regards roundabouts, which differ from ordinary unsignalized intersections in terms of geometry and driving behavior. Several studies on gap-acceptance at roundabouts can be found in the literature, but, to our knowledge, the fuzzy logic approach has never been used to analyze this type of problem. This chapter describes the development of a gap-acceptance model based on fuzzy system theory and specifically applicable to traffic entering a roundabout. As an alternative to probabilistic discrete choice models, fuzzy system based models can be considered to be appropriate for describing gap-acceptance behavior at roundabouts, because they allow to represent the uncertainty and vagueness that characterizes various aspects of the choice situation under study. Possible applications of fuzzy logic models of gap-acceptance behavior include roundabout entry capacity estimation and use in the context of traffic micro-simulation software. The study is based on data derived from on site observations carried out at a roundabout near Venice, Italy. The performance of the model, evaluated using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, indicates that fuzzy models can be considered an alternative to the use of random utility models.


Roundabout Gap-acceptance Fuzzy system Fuzzy logic ROC curve analysis 



The authors acknowledge the technical support of Engineer Alberto Sarto, Mr. Stefano Borgato and Mr. Alessandro Giachi.


  1. 1.
    Adebisi, O., Sama, G.N.: Influence of stopped delay on driver gap acceptance behavior. J. Transp. Eng.-ASCE 115(3), 305–315 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassidy, M., Madanat, S.M., Wang, M.H., Yang, F.: Unsignalized intersection capacity and level of service: revisiting critical gap. Transp. Res. Rec. 1484, 16–22 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daganzo, C.F.: Estimation of gap acceptance parameters within and across the population from direct roadside observation. Transport. Res. B-Meth. 15B, 1–15 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fawcett, T.: An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 27(8), 861–874 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glorennec, P.-Y.: Algorithmes d’apprentissage pour systems d’inférence floue. Editions Hermès, Paris (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guillaume, S., Charnomordic, B.: Generating an interpretable family of fuzzy partitions. IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst. 12, 324–335 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guillaume, S., Charnomordic, B.: Learning interpretable Fuzzy Inference Systems with FisPro. Int. J. Inf. Sci. 181(20), 4409–4427 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.025 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanley, B., McNeil, J.: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristics curve. Radiology 143, 29–36 (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klir, G., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Theory and applications. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lloyd, C.: The use of smoothed ROC curves to summarize and compare diagnostic systems. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 93, 1356–1364 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahmassani, H., Sheffi, Y.: Using gap sequences to estimate gap acceptance functions. Transport. Res. B-Meth. 15B, 143–148 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maze, T.: A probabilistic model of gap acceptance behavior. Transp. Res. Rec. 795, 8–13 (1981)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Obuchowski, N.: Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 229, 3–8 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pant, P.D., Balakrishnan, P.: Neural network for gap acceptance at stop-controlled intersections. J. Transp. Eng.-ASCE 120, 432–446 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollatschek, M.A., Polus, A., Livneh, M.: A decision model for gap acceptance and capacity at intersections. Transport. Res. B-Meth. 36, 649–663 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polus, A., Kraus, J., Reshetnik, I.: Non-stationary gap acceptance assuming drivers learning and impatience. Traffic Eng. Control 37, 395–402 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polus, A., Shiftan, Y., Shmueli-Lazar, S.: Evaluation of the waiting-time effect on critical gaps at roundabouts by a Logit model. Eur. J. Transp. Infr. Res. 5(1), 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polus, A., Shmueli, S.: Analysis and evaluation of the capacity of roundabouts. Transport. Res. Rec. 1572, 99–104 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polus, A., Shmueli-Lazar, S., Livneh, M.: Critical gap as a function of waiting time in determining roundabout capacity. J. Transp. Eng.-ASCE 129(5), 504–509 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G.: Development of gap acceptance fuzzy models using data from driving simulator experiments. In: Ayyub, B.M. (ed.) Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Analysis, Modeling, and Management. Proceedings of the ICVRAM 2011 and ISUMA2011 Conferences, Hyattsville, Maryland, 11–13 Apr 2011, pp. 138–146 (2011). ASCE, doi: 10.1061/41170(400)17
  21. 21.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G., Meneguzzer, C.: Comparative analysis of random utility models and fuzzy logic models for representing gap-acceptance behavior using data from driving simulator experiments. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 54, 834–844 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G., Meneguzzer, C.: Logit model versus fuzzy logic model for representing gap-acceptance behavior. WSC16 2011 Online Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G., Meneguzzer, C.: Transferability of fuzzy models of gap-acceptance behavior. In: Gaspar-Cunha, A., Takahashi, R., Schaefer, G., Costa, L. (eds.) Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, vol. 96, pp. 379–390. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rossi, R., Meneguzzer, C., Gastaldi, M.: Transfer and updating of Logit models of gap-acceptance and their operational implications. Transport. Res. C-Emer. 28, 142–154 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2011.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang, T.-C., Chi, L.-C.: Predicting multilateral trade credit risks: comparisons of Logit and Fuzzy Logic models using ROC curve analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 28, 547–556 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teply, S., Abou-Henaidy, M.I., Hunt, J.D.: Gap acceptance behaviour—aggregate and Logit perspectives: Part 1. Traffic Eng. Control 9, 474–482 (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teply, S., Abou-Henaidy, M.I., Hunt, J.D.: Gap acceptance behaviour—aggregate and Logit perspectives: Part 2. Traffic Eng. Control 10, 540–544 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toledo, T.: Driving behavior: models and challenges. Transport Rev. 27, 65–84 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wennel, J., Cooper, D.F.: Vehicle and driver effects on junction gap acceptance. Traffic Eng. Control 22(12), 628–632 (1981)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yau, J.-T., Chou, E., Lin, J.-D., Yu, J.: Pavement overlay effectiveness and optimal timing determination using receiver operating characteristic curve and data envelopment analysis methods. In: TRB 87th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yin, D., Qiu, T.Z.: Comparison of macroscopic and microscopic simulation models in modern roundabout analysis. Transport. Res. Rec. 2265, 244–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Rossi
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Gastaldi
    • 1
  • Gregorio Gecchele
    • 1
  • Claudio Meneguzzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural EngineeringUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations