Developing Fuzzy Route Choice Models Using Neural Nets
Yaser E. Hawas
Assistant Professor. Civil Eng. Department, C’niied Arab Emirates University
AI-Ain, UAE, P.O. Box 1755, Ph.: 971-37051699. E-mail:y.hawas@uaeu.ac.ae
Abstract
Thispaper discusses the calibraiion methodology of a
Neuro-Fuzv logic for route choice behaviour
modelling. The Neuro-Fuzzy refers io the recent
trend of logics that couple the traditionaljiuzy logic
structure with mural nets training capabilities for
knowledge bace and parameters seiiings. The J?AUY
logic accounis for the various foctors of potential
effect on the route choice utility perceived by the
traveller. The struciure of the jiuzy logic, the
calibration of the membership firnctionr, and the
composition of the knowledge base are discussed in
details. Logic training is based on data extractedfrom
a faciorial experimental design model.
1. Introduction
Route choice behaviour models represent the core of
the simulation models to support the Advanced
Traveller Information Systems (ATIS). Hawas [l]
provides a detailed overview on the state-of-practice
in the area of data collection, modelling, calibration
and validation of route choice models.
Route choice modelling has been traditionally
modelled by using random utility modelling
approaches; mostly Logit or Probit models [2-71.
Econometric methods, analysis of variance, cross
tabulations, regression techniques, and probabilistic
models were also widely used in studying and
modelling the route choice behaviour [8,9]. It can be
argued that these models may not accurately capture
the varying driver’s perception of the route trafic
states. Their distribution functions of the travellers’
behaviour (Gumbel’s or Normal distributions) may
not be valid, and as such these models’ applicability
might be limited. Laboratory simulation experiments
[2,6,10,11, 12,131, mail surveys [5,7], virtual reality
simulators [9], and internet-based graphical
simulators 1141 were utilized for data collection.
Fuzzy logic was recognized to be a very effective
modelling approach for the route choice complex
process [15,16,17]. It can be used to overcome the
limitations of the distribution functions inhibited in
the conventional modelling approaches. Twdorovic
et al [15] presented a fuzzy logic model for route
choice. The model’s knowledge base is developed
using simple reasoning arguements. Data to test this
algorithm were obtained from a computer simulation.
71
Henn [16] developed a fuzzy route choice model to
accommodate the uncertainties of the drivers’
behaviour. The model is compared with a stochastic
discrete choice logit model. The effect of the ATIS
information is modelled as a modification of the
probability (uncertainty) that the traveller perceives
regarding the predicted route cost. Kuri and Pursula
[17] compared between logit-type random utility
models and fuzzy logic.
This paper utilizes to the so-called “rule-based” fuzzy
technologies. Nearly, all recent fuzzy applications in
the area of transportation engineering are based on
this methodology [15,16,17]. The key benefit of
“rule-based” fuzzy logic is that it enables describing
the system with simple “if-then” relations. As such,
simpler solutions can be obtained with less design
time, and use of engineering knowledge can be easily
incorporated to optimise the system performance.
While this is certainly the advantage of fuzzy logic, it
is a major limitation. In many applications,
knowledge that describes a specific system status can
only be gathered by substantial exploration of huge
data sets. The “if-then” rules (knowledge base) are
commonly developed intuitively; through data
exploring and arbitrary simple reasoning arguements
- needless to comment on the major effort involved.
As such, very limited size knowledge bases were
developed and very few factors (primarily travel
time) were considered. Several factors of high
potential influence on route choice were not
considered to simplify the knowledge bases.
Furthermore, to the author’s knowledge, no specific
methodology was adopted or suggested for the
systematic calibration and verification of such fuzzy
logic knowledge bases.
Recently, operational research scientific committees
were motivated to integrate the neural nets training
capabilities into the development stages of the fuay
control logic. Neural nets would act as the agent for
deriving the if-then inference engine from the huge
data set. The integrated Neuro-Fuzzy logic have the
abilities to learn from data sets, derive its own
inference engine, and optimise its parameters.
2. Fuzzy Route Choice System
The input variables are the factors of potential
influence on the driver’s perception of the route
utility. In this paper, six factors were identified for 1. Prior Choice Route Utility Stage (PCS): this stage
each route alternative: calculates the route utility as perceived by the
traveller before the actual trip is made (when
1. Travel Time (numeric) helshe receives the information from any specific
2. Highway Classification (categorical) ATIS information source, S, at time, I). The input
3. Queuing Time (numeric) to this module is the matrix of the received factor
4. Familiarity (categorical) levels of all the mutes, Fj,s. The output of this
5. HighwayRavement Condition (categorical)
6. Speed (numeric) module is the vector of the prior routes’ utilities,
U;,s.The subscript P refers to the Prior utility.
Each numeric factor is regarded as a continuous real
number with some range (e.g. speed ranges from 0 to Initially, U;,, is set equivalent to the utilities
120 !un/hr). The range constitutes a set of smaller calculated at time f - I , (at f =0, set to zero)
intervals, each of which corresponds to a linguistic
term as shown in Table 1. The categorical factors are
discrefe integer numbers corresponding to linguistic 2. Following Choice Route Utility Stage (FCS): this
terms. At any time f, the ATIS information source, S, module calculates the route utility as actually
provides the traveller with a value (level) for each perceived by the traveller. The input to this
factor. Each level corresponds to one or more module is the matrix of acfually experienced
linguistic term (e.g. speed of 90 M r corresponds to factor levels, F;,,, The output of this module is
medium and high) with varying probabilities. the vector of actually perceived routes’ utilities,
Table 1. Term Definitions of the Route Choice
U>,s.The subscript A refers to the Actual utility.
Modelling Fuzzy System Initially,U>,sset is set equivalent to the utilities
Unit Min Max Linguistic
Variable Name Terms calculated at time f-1, U;; (at I =0, set to zero).
Travel Time Percent 100 650 Free
Light 3. Reliability Level (Experience) Stage (RLS): this
Medium module updates the routes’ reliability levels
High perceived by the travellers; to estimate the
travellers’ degree of confidence in the information
Highway Class 0 3 Freeway provided by S a t time 1. The route reliability level
AWP ’ is only updated if the prior perceived utility does
AWOP not match the acfually experienced one. The
input to this module is the vector of the difference
Queue Time minutes 0 25 Light between the prior and the actual utilities, dug.
Medium
Heavy The output is the vecfor of the route reliability
levels, R; . The dimension of this vector is equal
Familiarity 0 1 Familiar to the number of routes; each element represents
Non-Familiar the reliability level associated with a single mute.
hitially, R: set is set equivalent to &-I (at I
Speed kmihr 0 120 Low
Medium =O, set to unify vector).
High
4. Route Choice Decision Stage (RCS): This module
Highway/ 0 3 Poor emulates the route choice decision-making
Pavement Acceptable process. The input to this module includes
Condition Good primarily the most recent reliability vector, RA-’,
together with the mutes traffic states (factors’
Route Utility 0 450 VeryLow
Low levels), F;,,.The output of this module is the
Low-Medium vector of final route utility, U;,,. The subscript
Medium
Medium-High F refers to the Final utility.
Hieh
Very High This paper focuses on the development and
’’ART: with signal progression
Arterid
AWOP: Arterial without si& progression
calibration of the PCS and FCS modules. The logics
of two modules are identical (as shown in figure 1);
only the input values are different as previously
The logic system constitutes four various stages explained.
(modules). The role of each stage is explained below:

12
 Factorial Design Model's Estimated Utility, U=
Mean Effect
C255.96
Factor Effects
.18.74A1+13.02 A2-2.01A3-4.71Ahc2.0OAs
+27.06Bi+24.15B2-0.84Bs
+14.4OC]+7.5OC2
+33.66Di+8.27D2
-14.06E
I C -12.94Fi+1.74F2
-19.65G1+2.39Gz
Interaction Effects
+O.~~AIB~+~.O~A~B~-~.~~A~BI+~.~~A&-O.~~ASBI
t0.76A1B2+2.48A2B2-l.95A3B2+1.63A&-0.85AsB2
-0.72AIB3-0.25A2B3-0.1 7A3B3+2.4OA&- 1.19AsB3
-1.01AICl+2.61AzC1+2.05A~C~-3.48hC~-0.1 lAsCi
+1. ~ ~ A I C ~ + O . ~ ~ A ~ C ~ - O . ~ ~ ~ A ~ C Z - ~ . ~ O & C ~ - O . ~ ~ A S
-~.~OAID~-~.~~AZDI+O.~~A~DI+O.~~A~~~+~.O~
-3.80A~D2-0.90A2D2+0.26A3D2+1.83~2+1 .75A5D2
r +OSOAlE+l. ~ ~ A ~ E - ~ . ~ ~ A ~ E - O . ~ ~ U + ~ . S O A S E
+2.97AiF1-1.24AzF1-2.86A3Fi+3.9O%F,+3.46A91
-2.18AIF2+1.22A2F2+1.62A~F2-0.089A&-2.65AsF2
Lwia*hrh -1.16AIGl+l.85A2G1+5.53A~G1-4.81&G1-2.16AsG1
+0.95A,G2-1 . ~ Z A ~ G ~ - O . ~ ~ A ~ G ~ - O . ~ ~ & G ~ + O . S ~ A S G ~
Nlmalow w
+4.17BiC1-1.34B2C1-1.66B3C1
-2.14B I C ~ + O . ~ ~ B Z C ~ + O . ~ S B ~ C ~
Fdlowlrg LMce Unlity -1.92B,E+0.42B2E+0.97B,E
+O.~OCIDI-O.O~SC;DI
+1.5OC1D2-1.42GD2
Ac!a~sl RoUteFaLtDIs, Pa -0.94CiE -0.2OC2E

- K&+WCadidM:Crwwkd
F.mli.yCIapaU
Achld
RDUh
FCS
~ t i i i t y ,U L
where:

A: City area-Age Factor

............
Fig. 1. PCS and FCS stages of the fuzzy logic for A,: NC-Y Non-congested area and young age
route choice behaviour system A2: NC-M Non-congested area and medium age
A,: NC-0: Non-congested area and old age
3. Data for Fuzzy Logic Training &:C-Y Congested area and young age
AS:C-M Congested area and medium age
Six participant groups were targeted for collection of Aa: C - 0 Congested area and old age
data needed for the calibaration. These groups were B: Travel Time
selecetd to partially capture the effect of socio- B,: Free B2: Light
demographic characteristics on the route choice B3: Medium B4: High
behavior. The participants are grouped based on the C: Highway Class
common M c characteristics (congested, not C,:Freeway
congested) in the city area they reside and their age. C2: Arterial with signal progression: AWP
Travellers residing congested areas demonstrate more C,: Arterial without signal progression: AWOP
tolerance with high congestion levels than those D: Queue Time
residing non-congested areas, and as such their D,: Light D2: Medium D,: Heavy
perceptions of the congestion levels would differ. E: Familiarity
Similarly, older age groups demonstrate higher E,: Familiar h:Non-Familiar
tolerance levels to congestion. Each participant was F: Highway/ Pavement Condition
asked to allocate a score (weight) for each F1: Poor F2:Acceptable F3: Good
factorfievel. These scores were then utilized to G: Speed
estimate the mute utility associated will all GI: Slow G2:Medium GI: High
factornevel combinations. The score-estimated
utilities corresponding to various factordlevels were The factorial experimental design model is used to
utilized to develop the factorial aperimenfa1 design generate the data required for the training and
model below. The details of data collection, and calibration of the fuzzy logic. Training data is
calibration of the factorial experimental design model generated in six different buckets representing the
can be found in [l]. various participant groups. Each data bucket
constitutes 848 data records. Table 2 shows a sample

73
of the data bucket of the C-0 participants’ group.
The various data buckets were then used to develop a
separate knowledge base for each patkipants’ group.

Table 2. Sample Training Data for Route Utility I

Fuzzy Logic ( G O Group)

Factor Values Estimated 1 ,Z

,‘.,.
1 ;
-I i“ i .; .i -i i - 1 - / L

Route --YID-

B C D E F G Utility*
130 0 3 0 0 30 356.1286
350 0 3 0 0 30 222.4297
130 1 3 0 0 30 324.6624
350 1 15 1 1 60 167.1657
130 2 15 1 1 60 193.9634
200 0 8 1 0 90 298.8737
230
350
0
0
8
8
1
1
0
0
90
90
275.8522
227.078
* V a l u s mimatedwing h e Factorial Expcn”tal Design Model
i
l
f

~
.

----
l , t , ,
*
. .

Fig. 2. Numerical Factors’ Levels Identification

t l
I
z #

w-.Mlb.(D*p1
I
*

Scale Sheet.
5. Neuro-Fuzzy Logic Development and
Training

The membership functions of the numerical factors

were estimated using group discussion surveys [l]. A
total of 60 students, faculty members and stafi
equally representing various residence locations and
ages participated in these group discussion surveys.
Each participant was asked to identify on some i Travel Time (ratio of travel tine to mtumumtrave tunc
numerical scales bow does he/& perceives the
linguistic terms describing the levels of the numerical
factors (namely, travel time, queue time and speed);
for example, free travel time: 10-12 minutes, light
travel time: 12-15 minutes, etc. Figure 2 illustrates a
sample of the surveying sheet for this purpose. These
data are then used to set the definition points of the
membership functions of the linguistic terms as
shown in figure 3.

Table 3 shows a sample of IF-THEN rules of the C-0

group knowledge base. Initially, the rules formed
exhaustively; all possible arrangements of
input/output ferns. Each rule is assigned a degree of
support, DOS,representing the weight of the rule. The
DOS ranges from m.10 to one; zero indicates a non-
valid rule, and one indicates a valid rule. Initially, the
rules formed exhaustively, and the DOS’S are set Fig. 3. Membership functions of the numerical
randomly in the range [OJ]. The Neuro-Fuzzy factors
learning capability is used to calculate the DOS’S.
Table 3. Sample of the Rules of the Route Utility
The rules with DOS close to zero are considered non-
valid rules and could be eliminated from the IF-THEN Block
IF THEN
knowledge base. The training data from the factorial
experimental design model are utilized for developing Route
E C F D G B DOS Utility
the knowledge base by calibrating the DOS of the
Familiar Freeway Pwr Light Low Medium 0.59 Medium
rules, as well as calibrating the membership functions
of the route utility terms. Familiar F m y Poor Light Low High 0.80 Medim
Familiar Freeway Poor Light High F m 1.00 High

74
The Fuzzy-Tech software [18] is utilized in the Acknowledgement
development of the PCS and FCS modules. Data
training is carried out using a neural net iterative This research has been funded by the Research
algorithm based on the technology of Fuzzy Council at the UAE University under grant numbers
Associative Maps or Memoly @AM) [19]. The 04-7-11/2000 and 05-7-11/2001.
DoS’s are considered the training parameters. The
idea is to find the DoS’s that best match the training
data and the fuzzy logic derived utilities.

The algorithm calculates an error gradient by slightly

changing the DOS. At any iteration, the fuzzy logic
utilizes the input data of the training records to
calculate the route utility. Then, an error vector of
the difference between the calculated utilities and the
training data utilities is estimated. A heuristic
procedure is used to identify the rule most suited for
influencing such error vector. The DOSof this rule is
modified before another iteration is carried out. Upon
fulfilling any of the pre-specified stopping criteria the
training process is terminated.

Initially, the definition points of the route utility terms

are set arbitrary as shown in figure 4.a. Each term is
defined by a single base value that corresponds to
membership value of 1 (e.g. low route utility base is
set to 112 in Figure 4.a). The Neuro-Fuzzy uses the
term base for adaptation; a slight change of the base
will be accompanied by a horizontal shift of the term
maximum as well as a shift for the neighbouring
terms defmition points as indicated by the dashed set
shown in Figure 4.b. The base shifting is carried out
for a single term at a time, and simultaneously with
the DOS learning so as to achieve minimum error tm m 101 a
l
vector between mining data and fuzzy logic derived (1) Row Mlm
utilities. Figure 4.c shows the utility membership Fig. 4. Route utility defuzzification learning
functions upon terminating the learning procedure.

5. Route Utility Model Validation

Model validation is conducted through experimental
templates that illustrate for each traveller three routes
with various factor levels. The numeric factor levels
of the travel time, queuing time and speed were given
(not linguistic terms). 500 templates were prepared to
cover the various factor levels. Figure 5 shows a
sample template for validating the survey data and the
modelling approach. Each participant was randomly
assigned 20 templates and asked to select one of the
three routes shown in the template. Figure 6 shows
the contour maps of percentage agreement between
model and ochral route choice decisions; the darker
the shaded area, the higher the discrepancy between
the model and the actual decisions. The percentage
agreement ranges fiom 84 to 94%. These results
indicate that the developed fuzzy logic is quite
effective in capturing the route choice behaviour.

Fig. 5. Sample template for validating the survey

data and the modelling approach.

.
K” *i* e-3 ”.c CI UI
[lo] Adler, JL. “A Conflict model and Interactive
Otl*GrmP
Fig. 6. Percentage agreement between the model-
estimated and actual route choice decisions.
[ l l ] Chen, P.S. and Mahmassani, H.S. “Dynamic
References
Hawas, Y.E. “Development and Calibration of
Route Choice Behavior Models: Factorial
Experimental Design Approach”. Paper
Submitted for Publication in the
Transportation Research, Part C, 2001.
Vaughn, K.M., Ahdel-Aly, M.A., Kitamura,
R., Jovanis, P.P., Yang, H., Kroll, N.E.A.,
Post, R.B., and Oppy, B. “Experimental
Analysis and Modeling of Sequential Route
Choice Under an advanced Traveler
Information System in a Simplistic Traffic
Network“. Transportation Research Record,
1408, pp 7542,1993.
Srinvasan, K.K., and Mahmassani, H.S.
“Modeling Inertia and Compliance
Mechanisms in Route Choice Behavior Under
Real-time Information”. Transportation
Research Record. 1725, pp 45-53,2000,
Abdel-Aly, M.A., Vaughen, K.M., Kitamura,
R., Jovanis, P.P., and Mannering, F.L.
“Models of Commuters’ Information Use and
Route Choice: Initial Results Based on
Southern California Commuter Route Choice
Survey”. Transportation Research Record,
1 4 5 3 ; ~46-55,1994.
~ Vol. 116, No. 1, pp 77-101,2000.
Emmerink, R.H.M., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P.,
Van Ommeren, J.N. “Variable Message Signs
and Radio Traffic Information: An Integrated
Empirical Analysis of Drivers’ Route Choice
Behavior”. Transportation Research, Part A.
Vol. 30,No. 2, pp 135-153, 1996.
Lotan, T. “Effects of Familiarity on Route
Choice Behavior in the Presence of
Information”. Transportation Research, Part
C, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 225-243, 1997.
Abdel-Aty, M.A., Kitamura, R. and Jovanis,
P.P. “Using Stated Preference Data for
76
Studying the Effect of Advanced Traffic
Information on Drivers’ Route Choice”.
Transportation Research, Part C, Vol. 5 , No 1,
pp 39-50, 1997.
Vaughen, K.M.; Kitamura, R., and Jovanis,
P.P. Experimental Analysis and Modeling of
Advice Compliance: Results h m Advanced
Traveler Information System Simulation
Experiments. Transportation Research
Record, 1485,pp 18-26, 1995.
Katsikopoulos, K.V., Duse-Anthony, Y.,
Fisher, DL., Duffy, S.A. “The Framing of
Drivers’ Route Choices When Travel Time
Information is Provided Under Varying
Degrees of Cognitive Load”. Human Factors,
voi. 42, NO. 3,pp 470-481,2000.
Simulator (FASTCARS) for Predicting En-
Route Driver Behavior id Response to Real-
Time Traffic Condition Information”.
Transportation, Vol 20, No. 2, pp 83-106,
1993.
Interactive Simulator for Studying Commuter
BehaviorUnder Real-Time Traffic Information
Supply Strategies”. Transportation Research
Record, 1413, pp 12-21,1993.
[I21 Koutsopoulos, H.N., Lotan, T., and Yang, Q.
“A Driving Simulator and Its Application for
Modeling Route Choice in the Presence of
Information”. Transportation Research, Part
C, Vol2, No. 2, pp 91-107, 1994.
[I31 Bonsall, P., Firmin, P., Anderson, M., Palmer,
I. And Balmforth, P. “Validating the Results
of Route Choice Simulator”. Transportation
Research, Part C, Vol. 5 , No. 6, pp 371-387,
1997.
[I41 Ozhay, K., Datta, A., and Kacbroo, P.
“Modeling Route Choice Behavior Usin
Stochastic Learning Automata”. Proc. 8b
Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C, 2001.
1151 Teodorovic, D., Vukanovic, S., and Obradovic,
K. “Modeling Route Choice with Advanced
Traveler Information by fuzzy Logic”.
Transportation PIanning and Technologv, Vol.
22, No. 1, pp 1-25, 1998.
[I61 Henn, V. ‘‘Fuzzy Route Choice Model for
Traffic Assignment”. Fuzzy Sets and System,
[I71 Kuri, I. and Pursula, M. “Modeling Car Route
Choice with Non-Dynamic Stated Preference
Data: A Comparison Between Fuzzy Similarity
and Random Utility Models”. Proc 8@
Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C, 2001.
[IS] INFORM. FuuyTECH 5.52: User’s Manual.
GmbH I Inform Software Corporation,
Germany, 2002.
[I91 Ross, T. I. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering
Applications, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1995.