Data-Driven Approaches to Mining Passenger Travel Patterns: “Left-Behinds” in a Congested Urban Rail Transit Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “left-behind” phenomenon occurs frequently in Urban Rail Transit (URT) networks with booming travel demand, especially during peak hours in a complex URT network, which makes passenger travel patterns more complicated. This paper proposes a methodology to mine passenger travel patterns based on fare transaction records from automatic fare collection (AFC) systems and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data from Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) Systems or tracking systems. By introducing the concept of a sequence, a space-time-sequence trajectory model is proposed to simulate a passenger’s travel activities, including when they are left-behind. The paper analyzes passenger travel trajectory links and estimates the weight of each feasible trajectory under tap-in/tap-out constraints. The station time parameters, including access/egress and transfer walking-time parameters, are important inputs for the model. The paper also presents a maximum-likelihood approach to estimate these parameters from AFC transaction data and AVL data. The methodology is applied to a case study using AFC and AVL data from the Beijing URT network during peak hours to test the proposed model and algorithm. The estimation results are consistent with the results obtained from the authorities, and this finding verifies the feasibility of our approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".