Modeling Intercity Travel Mode Choice with Data Balance Changes: A Comparative Analysis of Bayesian Logit Model and Artificial Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study conducts a comprehensive comparative analysis of regression-based multinomial models and artificial neural network models in intercity travel mode choices. The four intercity travel modes of airplane, high-speed rail (HSR), train, and express bus were used for analysis. Passengers’ activity data over the process of intercity travel were collected to develop the models. The standard multinomial logit (MNL) regression and Bayesian multinomial logit (BMNL) regression were compared with the radial basis function (RBF) and multilayer perceptron (MLP). The results show that MLP performs best in terms of predictive accuracy, followed by BMNL and MNL, and RBF is the least accurate. The performances of all models were examined against changes in data balance, and it was found that rebalancing can improve fitting performance while slightly reducing the predictive performance. This comparative study and its parameter estimation shed new light on the comparison of traditional and emerging models in travel behavior studies, and the findings can be used as heuristic guidance for all stakeholders.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".