Applying Hybrid Lstm-Gru Model Based on Heterogeneous Data Sources for Traffic Speed Prediction in Urban Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT), it has become possible to have a variety of data sets generated through numerous types of sensors deployed across large urban areas, thus empowering the notion of smart cities. In smart cities, various types of sensors may fall into different administrative domains and may be accessible through exposed Application Program Interfaces (APIs). In such setups, for traffic prediction in Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), one of the major prerequisites is the integration of heterogeneous data sources within a preprocessing data pipeline resulting into hybrid feature space. In this paper, we first present a comprehensive algorithm to integrate heterogeneous data obtained from sensors, services, and exogenous data sources into a hybrid spatial–temporal feature space. Following a rigorous exploratory data analysis, we apply a variety of deep learning algorithms specialized for time series geospatial data and perform a comparative analysis of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and their hybrid combinations. The hybrid LSTM–GRU model outperforms the rest with Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 4.5 and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 6.67%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".