Comparative Analysis of Optimizer Effectiveness in GRU and CNN-GRU Models for Airport Traffic Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to airport traffic management, necessitating accurate predictive models. This research evaluates the effectiveness of various optimizers in enhancing airport traffic prediction using Deep Learning models, specifically Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) and Convolutional Neural Network-Gated Recurrent Units (CNN-GRU). We compare the performance of optimizers including RMSprop, Adam, Nadam, AdamW, Adamax, and Lion, and analyze the impact of their parameter tuning on model accuracy. Time series data from airports in the United States, Canada, Chile, and Australia were used, with preprocessing steps like filtering, cleaning, and applying a MinMax Scaler. The data was split into 80% for training and 20% for testing. Our findings reveal that the Adam optimizer paired with the GRU model achieved the lowest Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) in the USA. The study underscores the importance of selecting and tuning optimizers, with ReduceLROnPlateau used to adjust the learning rate dynamically, preventing overfitting and improving model convergence. However, limitations include dataset imbalance and region-specific results, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should address these limitations by developing balanced datasets and exploring optimizer performance across a broader range of regions and conditions. This study lays the groundwork for further investigating sustainable and accurate airport traffic prediction models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".