Comparative Insights Into E‐Scooter Usage Prediction Through Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared micromobility services are experiencing rapid growth, particularly in addressing last‐mile transportation needs. The most crucial questions focus on identifying the determinants of user behavior and the factors driving demand for micromobility vehicles. Investigating this topic is thus essential for meeting the demand of micromobility vehicles, ensuring their dynamic and flexible deployment, and optimizing overall system planning. In this study, demand forecasting was performed using a shared electric scooter (e‐scooter) dataset and by comparing 19 distinct machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms, including traditional ML algorithms, neural network–based (NN) models , ANN and metaheuristic hybrid models, and ensemble models. Algorithm performance, evaluated using R 2 and RMSE metrics, shows that boosting and hybrid models significantly outperform traditional algorithms. In this study, the algorithms were compared not only with RMSE and R 2 but also with their running times. Our analysis reveals that GRU, ANN–Grid–Search, ANN–Bayesian, ANN–Randomize–Search, ANN‐PSO, and ANN‐GA models achieve the highest performance, though this performance is inversely related to their computational cost. When the running time is included in the analysis, the GRU algorithm ranks best (RMSE: 0.945248, R 2 : 0.174226, runtime: 6.1), followed by ANN‐GA and ANN‐PSO models. These findings will help e‐scooter providers plan effectively and make informed investment decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".