Towards Station-Level Demand Prediction for Effective Rebalancing in Bike-Sharing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bike sharing systems continue gaining worldwide popularity as they offer benefits on various levels, from society to environment. Given that those systems tend to be unbalanced along time, bikes are typically redistributed throughout the day to better meet the demand. Reasonably accurate demand prediction is key to effective redistribution; however, it is has received only little attention in the literature. In this paper, we focus on predicting the hourly demand for demand rentals and returns at each station of the system. The proposed model uses temporal and weather features to predict demand mean and variance. It first extracts the main traffic behaviors from the stations. These simplified behaviors are then predicted and used to perform station-level predictions based on machine learning and statistical inference techniques. We then focus on determining decision intervals, which are often used by bike sharing companies for their online rebalancing operations. Our models are validated on a two-year period of real data from BIXI Montréal. A worst-case analysis suggests that the intervals generated by our models may decrease unsatisfied demands by 30% when compared to the current methodology employed in practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".