Revisiting Random Forests in a Comparative Evaluation of Graph Convolutional Neural Network Variants for Traffic Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic prediction is a spatiotemporal predictive task that plays an essential role in intelligent transportation systems. Today, graph convolutional neural networks (GCNNs) have become the prevailing models in the traffic prediction literature since they excel at extracting spatial correlations. In this work, we classify the components of successful GCNN prediction models and analyze the effects of matrix factorization, attention mechanism, and weight sharing on their performance. Furthermore, we compare these variations against random forests, a traditional regression method that predates GCNNs by over 15 years. We evaluated these methods using simulated data of two regions in Toronto as well as real-world sensor data from selected California highways. We found that incorporating matrix factorization, attention, and location-specific model weights either individually or collectively into GCNNs can result in a better overall performance. Moreover, although random forest regression is a less compact model, it matches or exceeds the performance of all variations of GCNNs in our experiments. This suggests that the current graph convolutional methods may not be the best approach to traffic prediction and there is still room for improvement. Finally, our findings also suggest that for future research on GCNN for traffic prediction to be credible, researchers must include performance comparison to random forests.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".