MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404042228 · doi:10.1080/15472450.2024.2417175

Forecasting short-term subway passenger flow using Wi-Fi data: comparative analysis of advanced time-series methods

2024· article· en· W4404042228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diego Da Silva, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Time seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Computer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately monitoring passenger demand fluctuations is crucial for streamlined operations of subway systems and informed decision-making. This study presents a detailed Time Series Analysis of the Toronto subway system using Wi-Fi data connection from devices as a predictor of passenger volume. Various time series models were tested for short-term forecasting, including Linear Regression, Exponential Smoothing, ARIMA, Random Forest, N-BEATS, and T-GCN. An end-to-end modeling implementation process was carried out, and the performance of each model was evaluated. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of short-term prediction models for univariate time series at the system level and discuss deployment challenges. While conventional time series models are fast to implement and interpretable, they require a more in-depth data exploration phase for validation, making scaling at the system level difficult. Additionally, maintenance is more challenging with conventional models, and their exploratory analysis phases need to be repeated when the models degrade over time. Prediction difficulty varied across each subway station, indicating the need for a more thorough calibration or hybrid approach, especially for transfer stations. Despite the different uses and qualities of each model in our scenario, Random Forest and Exponential Smoothing emerged as the best performers and could be a satisfactory option for robust demand forecasting at the system level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207