| Literature DB >> 27656203 |
Ningyu Zhang1, Huajun Chen2, Xi Chen2, Jiaoyan Chen2.
Abstract
In the latest years, the rapid progress of urban computing has engendered big issues, which creates both opportunities and challenges. The heterogeneous and big volume of data and the big difference between physical and virtual worlds have resulted in lots of problems in quickly solving practical problems in urban computing. In this paper, we propose a general application framework of ELM for urban computing. We present several real case studies of the framework like smog-related health hazard prediction and optimal retain store placement. Experiments involving urban data in China show the efficiency, accuracy, and flexibility of our proposed framework.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27656203 PMCID: PMC5021905 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4970246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1General application framework of ELM for urban computing.
Figure 2Segmented regions.
Figure 3Deep autoencoder of social view and physical view.
Details of the datasets.
| Datasets | Size (M) | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 2,523 |
|
| Tweets | 11,023 |
|
| Buses | 254 |
|
| Traffic | 119 |
|
| Real estate | 35 |
|
| Air | 534 |
|
| POI, business areas | 10 |
|
| Road network | 9 |
|
| Meteorological | 98 |
|
The results of smog-related health hazard prediction.
| Cities | Stacked ELM | BP | nu-SVR | Epsilon-SVR | Random forest | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Time |
|
| Time |
|
| Time |
|
| Time |
|
| Time | |
| Beijing | 0.65 |
|
| 0.66 | 0.79 | 15 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 9 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 9 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 7 |
| Tianjin | 0.92 |
|
| 0.56 | 0.59 | 13 | 0.58 | 0.73 | 10 | 0.66 | 0.73 | 11 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 8 |
| Shanghai | 0.53 |
|
| 0.55 | 0.69 | 16 | 0.55 | 0.64 | 11 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 10 | 0.12 | 0.30 | 8 |
| Hangzhou | 0.31 |
|
| 0.63 | 0.65 | 10 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 9 | 0.66 | 0.83 | 9 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 7 |
| Guangzhou | 0.53 | 0.54 |
| 0.65 | 0.69 | 15 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 11 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 21 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 8 |
| Average | 0.75 | 0.73 |
| 0.56 | 0.56 | 15 | 0.59 | 0.65 | 10 | 0.59 | 0.73 | 10 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 7 |
Figure 4NDCG, precision, and recall of @N for Starbucks in Beijing.
Figure 5NDCG, precision, and recall of @N for Starbucks in Beijing.
The best average NDCG@10 results of optimal retain store placement.
| Cities | Starbucks | TrueKungFu | YongheKing |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Beijing | 0.743 (15) | 0.643 (14) | 0.725 (14) |
| Shanghai | 0.712 (15) | 0.689 (14) | 0.712 (12) |
| Hangzhou | 0.576 (13) | 0.611 (12) | 0.691 (10) |
| Guangzhou | 0.783 (15) | 0.691 (13) | 0.721 (12) |
| Shenzhen | 0.781 (16) | 0.711 (15) | 0.722 (13) |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Beijing | 0.752 (23) | 0.678 (20) | 0.712 (19) |
| Shanghai | 0.725 (25) | 0.667 (20) | 0.783 (21) |
| Hangzhou | 0.723 (21) | 0.575 (19) | 0.724 (15) |
| Guangzhou | 0.812 (22) | 0.782 (19) | 0.812 (18) |
| Shenzhen | 0.724 (22) | 0.784 (17) | 0.712 (12) |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Beijing | 0.753 (45) | 0.658 (40) | 0.702 (41) |
| Shanghai | 0.724 (44) | 0.657 (42) | 0.7283 (44) |
| Hangzhou | 0.725 (41) | 0.555 (40) | 0.714 (45) |
| Guangzhou | 0.832 (45) | 0.772 (42) | 0.512 (41) |
| Shenzhen | 0.722 (47) | 0.754 (42) | 0.702 (45) |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Beijing |
|
|
|
| Shanghai |
|
| 0.783 (1) |
| Hangzhou |
|
|
|
| Guangzhou | 0.810 (9) |
|
|
| Shenzhen | 0.780 (9) | 0.783 (5) |
|