MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136265257 · doi:10.1155/2021/6638130

A Deep Graph-Embedded LSTM Neural Network Approach for Airport Delay Prediction

2021· article· en· W3136265257 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weili Zeng, Juan Li, Zhibin Quan, Xiaobo Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkGraphRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningKernel (algebra)Test setAlgorithmData miningTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the strong propagation causality of delays between airports, this paper proposes a delay prediction model based on a deep graph neural network to study delay prediction from the perspective of an airport network. We regard airports as nodes of a graph network and use a directed graph network to construct airports’ relationship. For adjacent airports, weights of edges are measured by the spherical distance between them, while the number of flight pairs between them is utilized for airports connected by flights. On this basis, a diffusion convolution kernel is constructed to capture characteristics of delay propagation between airports, and it is further integrated into the sequence-to-sequence LSTM neural network to establish a deep learning framework for delay prediction. We name this model as deep graph-embedded LSTM (DGLSTM). To verify the model’s effectiveness and superiority, we utilize the historical delay data of 325 airports in the United States from 2015 to 2018 as the model training set and test set. The experimental results suggest that the proposed method is superior to the existing mainstream methods in terms of accuracy and robustness.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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