A Noise-Robust Approach Using Dynamic Graph Neural Networks for Bus Passenger Flow Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term passenger flow prediction is critical for intelligent scheduling and efficient operation of public transportation systems. However, existing methods often struggle to maintain robustness and generalizability when facing complex and heterogeneous noise sources, such as passenger flow noise including sensor-induced missing values and abrupt ridership fluctuations caused by unexpected events, and graph structural noise resulting from dynamic changes in the network topology due to route modifications or stop closures. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a novel deep learning framework: Robust Dynamic Graph Neural Networks (RDGNN), that integrates noise cleaning, dynamic graph modeling, and more efficient prediction. The proposed noise cleaning employs K-Nearest Neighbor imputation and Gaussian Mixture Models with a penalty function to mitigate data-level noise, while a graph structure denoising module is introduced to correct topological anomalies in the transit network and enhance the reliability of spatial representation. For feature modeling, the framework constructs a dynamic graph neural network from a subgraph perspective to capture both spatial dependencies and temporal dynamics, particularly suited to modeling interactions among transfer stations. A Liquid Neural Network is adopted as the prediction module, leveraging its strong adaptability and memory capacity to handle irregular and non-stationary time series, while remaining computationally efficient. The RDGNN model was trained and validated on real-world bus passenger flow data from Ames, Iowa, and further evaluated on the large-scale EXO dataset. Compared to state-of-the-art models, RDGNN consistently achieves better prediction accuracy, higher robustness to noise and missing data, and greater computational efficiency. Its strong and stable performance across both datasets, including in scenarios such as route disruptions and seasonal variation, demonstrates excellent generalization capability in diverse urban transit systems. The code is available at: <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/XinyiZhou0318/A-Noise-Robust-Approach-Using-Dynamic-Graph-Neural-Networks-for-Bus-Passenger-Flow-Prediction</uri>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".