Short‐Term Interval Prediction of Inbound Passenger Flow of Subway Station under Failure Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate forecasting of subway passenger flows is considered essential for the development of efficient train schedules. However, transport capacity constraints as well as station congestion can be caused by unexpected concerns with trains or power supply, which endanger passenger safety. Predicting passenger flows at the time of a fault is particularly challenging due to the low probability of failure and the complexity of the factors involved. In addition, deviation from the observed value may be resulted by the point‐in‐time prediction of passenger flow, thus affecting the efficiency of passenger flow control measures. To address this concern, a three‐stage A‐LSTM prediction model utilizing an attention mechanism and a double‐layer LSTM (Long Short‐Term Memory) neural network has been proposed. The model is used to map the impact of fault events on subway transport capacity with respect to delays onto the inbound passenger flow. By analyzing the data from the subway system in a metropolitan city of China, the range of passenger flow fluctuations in 10‐minute intervals will be precisely predicted and applied to different subway stations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".