MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088452585 · doi:10.1155/2020/8859538

Urban Traffic Flow Forecast Based on FastGCRNN

2020· article· en· W3088452585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ya Zhang, Mingming Lu, Haifeng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphComputational complexity theoryTraffic flow (computer networking)Convolution (computer science)Scale (ratio)Data miningArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingArtificial neural networkTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmGeographyComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic forecasting is an important prerequisite for the application of intelligent transportation systems in urban traffic networks. The existing works adopted RNN and CNN/GCN, among which GCRN is the state-of-the-art work, to characterize the temporal and spatial correlation of traffic flows. However, it is hard to apply GCRN to the large-scale road networks due to high computational complexity. To address this problem, we propose abstracting the road network into a geometric graph and building a Fast Graph Convolution Recurrent Neural Network (FastGCRNN) to model the spatial-temporal dependencies of traffic flow. Specifically, we use FastGCN unit to efficiently capture the topological relationship between the roads and the surrounding roads in the graph with reducing the computational complexity through importance sampling, combine GRU unit to capture the temporal dependency of traffic flow, and embed the spatiotemporal features into Seq2Seq based on the Encoder-Decoder framework. Experiments on large-scale traffic data sets illustrate that the proposed method can greatly reduce computational complexity and memory consumption while maintaining relatively high accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207