Prediction and Impact Analysis of Passenger Flow in Urban Rail Transit in the Postpandemic Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the postpandemic era, exploring the relationship between the daily new COVID-19 cases and passenger flow in urban rail transit can help effectively predict the impact of future pandemic situations on rail transit. In this study, based on a gated recurrent unit (GRU) neural network model, the daily passenger flow in urban rail transit in the postpandemic era was predicted, and the results were compared with those obtained using the long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network and other conventional time series analysis models such as SARIMA (seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average). Based on the trained GRU model, a partial dependence plot (PDP) was adopted to explore the quantitative relationship between the daily passenger flow and the daily new cases or weather attribute. The results showed that (1) the prediction accuracy of the GRU neural network model was 95.25%, which was the highest among the prediction models studied, indicating that the GRU could achieve the best performance. (2) The GRU model did not fluctuate significantly in the initial training stage, and its convergence rate was higher than that of the LSTM. (3) The number of daily new cases was negatively correlated with the daily passenger flow. For every new case on the previous day, the daily passenger flow fell by an average of 54,600 person-times. (4) Compared with no rain condition, the daily passenger flow decreased by 207,600 person-times on an average on rainy days. In summary, the neural network could achieve accurate prediction, while the PDP could compensate for the “black box” disadvantage of nonparametric models, owing to which the quantitative relationship between the number of new cases and daily passenger flow could be successfully explored. Our study can serve as a basis for demand prediction, operational organization, and policy implementation related to urban rail transit.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".