PREDICTION PERFORMANCE OF AIRPORT TRAFFIC USING BILSTM AND CNN-BI-LSTM MODELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant and enduring impact on the aviation industry, necessitating the accurate prediction of airport traffic. This study compares the predictive accuracy of biLSTM (Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory) and CNN-biLSTM (Convolutional Neural Network-Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory) models using various optimization techniques such as RMSProp, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), Adam, Nadam, and Adamax. The evaluation is based on Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) indices. In the United States, the biLSTM model utilizing the Nadam optimizer achieved an MAPE score of 9.76%. On the other hand, the CNN-biLSTM model utilizing the Nadam optimizer demonstrated a slightly improved MAPE score of 9.62%. For Australia, the biLSTM model using the Nadam optimizer obtained an MAPE score of 31.52%. However, the CNN-biLSTM model employing the RMSprop optimizer had a marginally higher MAPE score of 33.33%. In Chile, the biLSTM model using the Adam optimizer obtained an MAPE score of 44.04%. Conversely, the CNN-biLSTM model using the RMSprop optimizer had a slightly higher MAPE score of 44.09%. Lastly, in Canada, the biLSTM model using the Nadam optimizer achieved a comparatively low MAPE score of 14.99%. Similarly, the CNN-biLSTM model utilizing the Adam optimizer demonstrated a slightly better MAPE score of 14.75%. These results highlight that the choice of optimization technique, model architecture, and balanced dataset can significantly influence the prediction accuracy of airport traffic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".