Parameter Estimation Strategies for Large-Scale Urban Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale urban models often are subdivided into simpler submodels. The parameters of these models can be estimated using approaches that differ in regard to whether the full modeling system is run during an estimation procedure or whether that overall estimation is performed simultaneously with the estimation of the individual submodels. There are also ways in which extra data or extra models can be used to further inform parameter values. Five different techniques are presented (“limited view,” “piecewise” “simultaneous,” “sequential,” and “Bayesian sequential”), and the statistical theory necessary to justify each technique concurrently is described. The practical advantages and disadvantages are discussed, and each technique is illustrated using a simple nested logit model example. The concepts then are further illustrated by describing the sequential parameter estimation process for a land use/transport interaction model of the Sacramento, California, region. The ideas and examples should help modelers place more of an emphasis on overall calibration, allow them to follow a more rigorous approach in establishing the parameters of large-scale urban models, and help them understand the theory and assumptions that they are implicitly adopting. Two techniques in particular are noted as worthy of future research in large-scale urban modeling: ( a) establishing the likelihood function based directly on the structural equations of the model, eliminating or reducing the need to “solve” for the model outputs during parameter estimation; and ( b) using Bayesian techniques to adjust parameters in an overall estimation without discarding what is already known about those parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".