Spatiotemporal Clustering of Parking Lots at the City Level for Efficiently Sharing Occupancy Forecasting Models
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
This study aims to address the challenge of developing accurate and efficient parking occupancy forecasting models at the city level for autonomous vehicles. Although deep learning techniques have been successfully employed to develop such models for individual parking lots, it is a resource-intensive process that requires significant amounts of time and data for each parking lot. To overcome this challenge, we propose a novel two-step clustering technique that groups parking lots based on their spatiotemporal patterns. By identifying the relevant spatial and temporal characteristics of each parking lot (parking profile) and grouping them accordingly, our approach allows for the development of accurate occupancy forecasting models for a set of parking lots, thereby reducing computational costs and improving model transferability. Our models were built and evaluated using real-time parking data. The obtained correlation rates of 86% for the spatial dimension, 96% for the temporal one, and 92% for both demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy in reducing model deployment costs while improving model applicability and transfer learning across parking lots.
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 | 0.001 | 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