| Literature DB >> 30011942 |
Gang Yang1, Yunpeng Wang2,3, Haiyang Yu4,5, Yilong Ren6,7,8, Jindong Xie9.
Abstract
Recently, short-term traffic prediction under conditions with corrupted or missing data has become a popular topic. Since a road section has predictive power regarding the adjacent roads at a specific location, this paper proposes a novel hybrid convolutional long short-term memory neural network model based on critical road sections (CRS-ConvLSTM NN) to predict the traffic evolution of global networks. The critical road sections that have the most powerful impact on the subnetwork are identified by a spatiotemporal correlation algorithm. Subsequently, the traffic speed of the critical road sections is used as the input to the ConvLSTM to predict the future traffic states of the entire network. The experimental results from a Beijing traffic network indicate that the CRS-ConvLSTM outperforms prevailing deep learning (DL) approaches for cases that consider critical road sections and the results validate the capability and generalizability of the model when predicting with different numbers of critical road sections.Entities:
Keywords: critical road sections; deep learning; short-term traffic prediction; spatiotemporal correlation; structural missing data
Year: 2018 PMID: 30011942 PMCID: PMC6068706 DOI: 10.3390/s18072287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The process of shaping spatiotemporal matrix of critical road section: (a) A spatiotemporal matrix of overall network and (b) A spatiotemporal matrix of critical road sections.
Figure 2The structure of the convolutional neural networks (CNN).
Figure 3The architecture of long short-term memory neural network (LSTM NN).
Figure 4Layout of the sub-transportation network in Beijing.
Figure 5Influence between roads in the case of different k-order.
Figure 6Trend of correlation distance along with the time lag.
Figure 7Trend of weights along with the time lag.
Correspondence of extracting rate and the number of critical road sections.
| Parameters | Values | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extracting rate | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 1.00 |
| Number of roads | 167 | 181 | 195 | 209 | 222 | 236 | 250 | 264 | 278 |
Figure 8Distribution of critical road sections in the: (a) Morning Peak Period; (b) Daytime Ordinary Period; (c) Evening Peak Period; and (d) Evening Ordinary Period.
Hyperparameters of the hybrid convolutional long short-term memory neural network model based on critical road sections (CRS-ConvLSTM) when .
| Layer | Name | Parameters | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Convolution | (16, 3, 3) | (16, 195, 15) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (16, 98, 8) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 2 | Convolution | (32, 3, 3) | (32, 98, 8) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (32, 49, 4) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 3 | Convolution | (64, 3, 3) | (64, 49, 4) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (64, 25, 2) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 4 | Convolution | (128, 3, 3) | (128, 25, 2) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (128, 13, 1) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 5 | Convolution | (256, 3, 3) | (256, 13, 1) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (256, 7, 1) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 6 | Flatten | -- | (1792, ) |
| 7 | Fully connected | 278 | (278, ) |
| 8 | LSTM | 200 | -- |
| Activation(tanh) | -- | -- | |
| 9 | LSTM | 200 | -- |
| Activation(tanh) | -- | -- | |
| 10 | Fully connected | 278 | (278, ) |
Performance in the case of different value of k.
| Index | The Value of | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| RMSE | 6.972 | 6.967 | 6.955 | 6.989 |
| RMSEP (%) | 21.933 | 21.963 | 21.802 | 21.832 |
Hyperparameters of the ANN when .
| Layer | Name | Parameters | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Input | -- | (195 × 15, ) |
| 1 | NN | 128 | -- |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Dropout (0.2) | -- | -- | |
| 2 | NN | 256 | -- |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Dropout (0.2) | -- | -- | |
| 3 | NN | 512 | -- |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Dropout (0.2) | -- | -- | |
| 4 | Fully connected | 278 | (278, ) |
Hyperparameters of the CNN when .
| Layer | Name | Parameters | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Input | -- | (1, 195, 15) |
| 1 | Convolution | (16, 3, 3) | (16, 195, 15) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (16, 98, 8) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 2 | Convolution | (32, 3, 3) | (32, 98, 8) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (32, 49, 4) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 3 | Convolution | (64, 3, 3) | (64, 49, 4) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (64, 25, 2) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 4 | Convolution | (128, 3, 3) | (128, 25, 2) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (128, 13, 1) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 5 | Convolution | (256, 3, 3) | (256, 13, 1) |
| Pooling | (2, 2) | (256, 7, 1) | |
| Activation(relu) | -- | -- | |
| Batch-normalization | -- | -- | |
| 6 | Flatten | -- | (1792, ) |
| 7 | Fully connected | 278 | (278, ) |
Hyperparameters of the LSTM when .
| Layer | Name | Parameters | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Input | -- | (1, 195 × 15) |
| 1 | LSTM | 200 | -- |
| Activation(tanh) | -- | -- | |
| 2 | LSTM | 200 | -- |
| Activation(tanh) | -- | -- | |
| 3 | Fully connected | 278 | (278, ) |
Hyperparameters of the SAE when .
| Task | Hidden Layers | Hidden Units (Bottom-Top) |
|---|---|---|
| 30-min traffic prediction | 3 | [200, 200, 200] |
Performance of different prediction models when .
| Model | RMSE | RMSEP (%) |
|---|---|---|
| CRS-ConvLSTM | 6.955 | 21.802 |
| LSTM | 7.359 | 22.849 |
| CNN | 7.937 | 26.521 |
| SAE | 8.377 | 26.442 |
| ANN | 9.504 | 37.870 |
Figure 9Errors between the ground truth and the estimated value on: (a) 3 August 2015 and (b) 17 August 2015.
Performance of the CRS-ConvLSTM under different extracting rate.
|
| Prediction Performance on Test Dataset | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | Drop Rate (%) | RMSEP (%) | Drop Rate (%) | |
| 1.0 | 6.778 | - | 21.022 | - |
| 0.95 | 6.889 | 1.638 | 21.530 | 2.417 |
| 0.90 | 7.144 | 5.400 | 22.698 | 7.973 |
| 0.85 | 7.145 | 5.415 | 22.693 | 7.949 |
| 0.80 | 7.025 | 3.644 | 21.425 | 1.917 |
| 0.75 | 6.926 | 2.184 | 21.409 | 1.841 |
| 0.70 | 6.955 | 2.611 | 21.802 | 3.710 |
| 0.65 | 7.232 | 6.698 | 23.763 | 13.039 |
| 0.60 | 7.468 | 10.180 | 24.078 | 14.537 |
Figure 10Trend of prediction accuracy under different extracting rate.
Prediction results in the case of stochastic and extreme situation.
|
| Prediction Performance on Test Dataset | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stochastic Case | Extreme Case | |||
| RMSE | Drop Rate (%) | RMSE | Drop Rate (%) | |
| 0.95 | 7.345 | 6.619 | 8.565 | 24.329 |
| 0.90 | 7.992 | 11.870 | 8.679 | 21.487 |
| 0.85 | 7.837 | 9.685 | 8.682 | 21.512 |
| 0.80 | 7.534 | 7.245 | 8.647 | 23.089 |
| 0.75 | 7.728 | 11.579 | 8.734 | 26.105 |
| 0.70 | 7.412 | 6.571 | 8.470 | 21.783 |
| 0.65 | 7.565 | 4.605 | 8.701 | 20.313 |
| 0.60 | 7.847 | 5.075 | 8.785 | 17.635 |
Figure 11Comparison between critical road sections (CRS) case, stochastic case (SC) and extreme case (EC).