Survey and empirical evaluation of nonhomogeneous arrival process models with taxi data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Arrival processes are important inputs to many transportation system functions, such as vehicle prepositioning, taxi dispatch, bus holding strategies, and dynamic pricing. We conduct a comprehensive survey of the literature which shows that many transport systems employ basic homogeneous arrival process models or static nonhomogeneous processes. We conduct an empirical experiment to compare five state of the art arrival process short term prediction models using a common transportation system data set: New York taxi passenger pickups in 2013. Pickup data is split between 672 observations for model estimation and 96 observations for validation. From our experiment, we obtain evidence to support a recent model called FM‐IntGARCH, which is able to combine the benefits of both time series models and discrete count processes. Using a set of seven performance metrics from the literature, FM‐IntGARCH is shown to outperform the offline models—seasonal factor method, piecewise linear model—as well as the online models—ARIMA, Gaussian Cox process. Implications for operating data‐driven “smart” transit systems and urban informatics are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".