A Combined Deep Learning Method with Attention-Based LSTM Model for Short-Term Traffic Speed Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term traffic speed prediction is a promising research topic in intelligent transportation systems (ITSs), which also plays an important role in the real-time decision-making of traffic control and guidance systems. However, the urban traffic speed has strong temporal, spatial correlation and the characteristic of complex nonlinearity and randomness, which makes it challenging to accurately and efficiently forecast short-term traffic speeds. We investigate the relevant literature and found that although most methods can achieve good prediction performance with the complete sample data, when there is a certain missing rate in the database, it is difficult to maintain accuracy with these methods. Recent studies have shown that deep learning methods, especially long short-term memory (LSTM) models, have good results in short-term traffic flow prediction. Furthermore, the attention mechanism can properly assign weights to distinguish the importance of traffic time sequences, thereby further improving the computational efficiency of the prediction model. Therefore, we propose a framework for short-term traffic speed prediction, including data preprocessing module and short-term traffic prediction module. In the data preprocessing module, the missing traffic data are repaired to provide a complete dataset for subsequent prediction. In the prediction module, a combined deep learning method that is an attention-based LSTM (ATT-LSTM) model for predicting short-term traffic speed on urban roads is proposed. The proposed framework was applied to the urban road network in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China, with a 30-day traffic speed dataset (floating car data) used as the experimental sample. Results show that the proposed method outperforms other deep learning algorithms (such as recurrent neural network (RNN) and convolutional neural network (CNN)) in terms of both calculating efficiency and prediction accuracy. The attention mechanism can significantly reduce the error of the LSTM model (up to 12.4%) and improves the prediction performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".