MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296743024 · doi:10.1155/2022/2348375

Metro Traffic Flow Prediction via Knowledge Graph and Spatiotemporal Graph Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4296743024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shun Wang, Yimei Lv, Xinglin Piao, Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphTraffic flow (computer networking)Artificial neural networkData miningControl flow graphRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing traffic flow prediction methods generally only consider the spatiotemporal characteristics of traffic flow. However, in addition to the spatiotemporal characteristics, the interference of various external factors needs to be considered in traffic flow prediction, including severe weather, major events, traffic control, and metro failures. The current research still cannot fully use the information contained in these external factors. To address this issue, we propose a novel metro traffic flow prediction method (KGR-STGNN) based on knowledge graph representation learning. We construct a knowledge graph that stores factors related to metro traffic networks. Through the knowledge graph representation learning technology, we can learn the influence representation of external factors from the traffic knowledge graph, which can better incorporate the influence of external factors into the prediction model based on the spatiotemporal graph neural network. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207