Prediction and Analysis of Train Passenger Load Factor of High-Speed Railway Based on LightGBM Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to improve the prediction accuracy of train passenger load factor of high-speed railway and meet the demand of different levels of passenger load factor prediction and analysis, the influence factor of the train passenger load factor is analyzed in depth. Taking into account the weather factor, train attribute, and passenger flow time sequence, this paper proposed a forecasting method of train passenger load factor of high-speed railway based on LightGBM algorithm of machine learning. Considering the difference of the influence factor of the passenger load factor of a single train and group trains, a single train passenger load factor prediction model based on the weather factor and passenger flow time sequence and a group of trains’ passenger load factor prediction model based on the weather factor, the train attribute, and passenger flow time sequence factor were constructed, respectively. Taking the train passenger load factor data of high-speed railway in a certain area as an example, the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method were verified and compared. It is verified that LightGBM algorithm of machine learning proposed in this paper has higher prediction accuracy than the traditional models, and its scientific and accurate prediction can provide an important reference for the calculation of passenger ticket revenue, operation benefit analysis, etc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".