Forecasting Passenger Flow Distribution on Holidays for Urban Rail Transit Based on Destination Choice Behavior Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passenger travel flows of urban rail transit during holidays usually show distinct characteristics different from normal days. To ensure efficient operation management, it is essential to accurately predict the distribution of holiday passenger flow. Based on Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) data, this paper explores the passengers’ destination choice differences between normal days and holidays, as well as one-way tickets and public transportation cards, which provides support for variable selection in modeling. Then, a forecasting model of holiday travel distribution is proposed, in which the destination choice model is established for representing local and nonlocal passengers. Meanwhile, explanatory variables such as land matching degree, scenic spot dummy, and level of service variables are introduced to deal with the particularity of holiday passengers’ travel behavior. The parameters calibrated by the improved weighted exogenous sampling maximum likelihood (WESML) method are applied to predict passenger flow distribution in different holiday cases with annual changes in the metro network, using the data collected from Guangzhou Metro, China. The results show that the proposed model is valid and performs better than the other comparable models in terms of forecasting accuracy. The proposed model has the capability to provide a more universal and accurate passenger flow distribution prediction method for urban rail transit in different holiday scenarios with network changes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".