MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367835987 · doi:10.1155/2023/9524966

Short-Term Passenger Flow Forecasting for Rail Transit considering Chaos Theory and Improved EMD-PSO-LSTM-Combined Optimization

2023· article· en· W4367835987 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lixin Zhao, Hui Jin, Xintong Zou, Xiao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationHilbert–Huang transformMean squared errorInertiaAlgorithmComputer scienceNonlinear systemMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a prediction method based on chaos theory and an improved empirical-modal-decomposition particle-swarm-optimization long short-term-memory (EMD-PSO-LSTM)-combined optimization process for passenger flow data with high nonlinearity and dynamic space-time dependence, using EMD to process the original passenger flow data and generate several eigenmodal functions (IMFs) and residuals with different characteristic scales. Based on the chaos theory, each component of the PSO algorithm was improved by introducing an inertia factor to facilitate the adjustment of its search capability to improve optimization. Each subsequence of the phase-space reconstruction was built into an improved PSO-LSTM prediction model, and the output of each prediction model was summed to determine the final output. Experimental studies were performed using data from the North Railway Station of Chengdu Rail Transit, and the results showed that the proposed model can generate better prediction results. The proposed model obtained root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) of 16.0908 and 11.3704, respectively. Compared with the LSTM, the improved PSO-LSTM, the improved EMD-PSO-LSTM, and the model proposed in this paper improved the RMSE values by 25.53%, 29.97%, and 58.76%, respectively, and the MAE values by 30.41%, 40.13%, and 63.08%, respectively, of the prediction results.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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