A Comparative Study of Parking Occupancy Prediction Methods considering Parking Type and Parking Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parking issues have been receiving increasing attention. An accurate parking occupancy prediction is considered to be a key prerequisite to optimally manage limited parking resources. However, parking prediction research that focuses on estimating the occupancy for various parking lots, which is critical to the coordination management of multiple parks (e.g., district-scale or city-scale), is relatively limited. This study aims to analyse the performance of different prediction methods with regard to parking occupancy, considering parking type and parking scale. Two forecasting methods, FM1 and FM2, and four predicting models, linear regression (LR), support vector machine (SVR), backpropagation neural network (BPNN), and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), were proposed to build models that can predict the parking occupancy of different parking lots. To compare the predictive performances of these models, real-world data of four parks in Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Dongguan were collected over 8 weeks to estimate the correlation between the parking lot attributes and forecast results. As per the case studies, among the four models considered, SVM offers stable and accurate prediction performance for almost all types and scales of parking lots. For commercial, mixed functional, and large-scale parking lots, FM1 with SVM made the best prediction. For office and medium-scale parking lots, FM2 with SVM made the best prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".