Traffic Flow Prediction With Missing Data Imputed by Tensor Completion Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing data is inevitable and ubiquitous in intelligent transportation systems (ITSs). A handful of completion methods have been proposed, among which the tensor-based models have been shown to be the most advantageous for missing traffic data imputation. Despite their superior imputation accuracies, the adoption of these imputed data is not uniform in modern ITSs applications. The primary goal of this paper is to explore how to use tensor completion methods to support ITSs. In particular, we study how to improve traffic flow prediction accuracy under different missing scenarios. Specifically, three common missing scenarios including element-wise random missing, time-structured missing, and space-structured missing are considered. Four classical tensor completion models including Smooth PARAFAC Decomposition based Completion (SPC), CP Decomposition-based (CP-WOPT) Completion, Tucker Decomposition-based Completion (TDI), and High-accuracy Low-rank Tensor Completion (HaLRTC) are used to impute the missing data. Four well-known prediction methods including Support Vector Regression (SVR), K-nearest Neighbor (KNN), Gradient Boost Regression Tree (GBRT), and Long Short-term Memory (LSTM) are tested. The simple mean value interpolation completed traffic data is regarded as the baseline data. The extensive experiments show that improvements of traffic flow prediction can be achieved by increasing missing traffic data imputation accuracy at most cases. Interestingly we find that prediction accuracy cannot be improved by an imputation model when the sparsely observed training datasets already provide sufficient training samples.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".