Hybrid models of subway passenger flow prediction based on convolutional neural network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate and stable short‐term passenger flow prediction is an indispensable part of current intelligent transportation systems. This paper proposes two deep learning prediction models based on convolutional neural networks (CNN) and long short‐term memory neural network (LSTM). Combining the CNN characteristics and the LSTM, the ConvXD‐LSTM extracts passenger flow features through CNN and then inputs the time series into the LSTM. The ConvLSTM converts the weight calculation of the LSTM into convolution operation to realize short‐term passenger flow prediction. Fuzhou Metro Line 1 passenger flow data was used for verification. The models were used to predict the passenger flow of subway stations and cross‐sections and compared with the traditional prediction models. In terms of prediction accuracy, ConvLSTM has the highest accuracy, followed by ConvXD‐LSTM. In terms of running time, ConvXD is the fastest and LSTM takes the longest. ConvXD‐LSTM and ConvLSTM are in the middle of the two models, achieving a good balance between accuracy and efficiency. Compared with ConvXD‐LSTM, ConvLSTM has a relatively simple network structure, which reduces the computational burden and improves the prediction accuracy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it