| Literature DB >> 35783700 |
Xiaozhen Liang1, Qing Zhang1, Chenxi Hong1, Weining Niu2, Mingge Yang1.
Abstract
Before making travel plans, people often use the Internet to collect relevant information to help themselves make better decisions. Among the numerous information search channels, Internet search engine is used by the vast number of travelers because of its low cost and high efficiency. To a large extent, Internet search behavior is the external manifestation of users' psychological activities, reflecting their concerns, needs and preferences. Therefore, Internet search data can reflect the air passenger demand information to a certain extent. In this manuscript, a novel decomposition ensemble model is proposed to discuss the role of Internet search data in air passenger demand forecasting. In the empirical study, the relevant data of Shanghai Pudong International Airport and Beijing Capital International Airport are taken as samples. The results show that the proposed forecasting model can integrate the advantages of decomposition-ensemble strategy and deep learning algorithm, and achieve more accurate and reliable prediction results than all benchmark models. This further indicates that adding Internet search data into the forecasting model can effectively improve the prediction performance of air passenger demand, and can provide scientific and reliable decision support for air transport management.Entities:
Keywords: Internet search data; air passenger demand; deep learning algorithm; multivariate empirical mode decomposition; time series analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783700 PMCID: PMC9244845 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Correlation mechanism between information search and travel decision-making.
FIGURE 2Structure of an long short-term memory (LSTM) memory cell.
FIGURE 3Structure of MIC_MEMD_BiLSTM prediction model.
FIGURE 4Air passenger volume of two airports from January 2011 to December 2019.
Keyword selection of Shanghai Pudong International Airport.
| No. | Keywords | No. | Keywords | No. | Keywords |
| 1 | Shanghai Pudong Airport | 8 | Shanghai Pudong Airport map | 15 | Pudong Airport bus schedule |
| 2 | Shanghai Pudong International Airport | 9 | Shanghai Pudong Airport parking fee | 16 | Pudong Airport duty-free shop |
| 3 | Shanghai Pudong Airport bus | 10 | Shanghai Pudong Airport duty-free shop | 17 | Pudong Airport parking fee |
| 4 | Shanghai Pudong Airport bus schedule | 11 | Shanghai Pudong Airport tel | 18 | Pudong Airport Terminal 2 |
| 5 | Shanghai Pudong Airport to Hangzhou | 12 | Pudong International Airport | 19 | Pudong Airport to Hongqiao Airport |
| 6 | Shanghai Pudong Airport hotel | 13 | Pudong Airport | 20 | Pudong Airport to Shanghai Hongqiao Railway Station |
| 7 | Shanghai Pudong Airport near hotel | 14 | Pudong Airport flight enquiries |
FIGURE 5Maximum information coefficient (MIC) values between each keyword variable and passenger volume of Shanghai Pudong International Airport.
FIGURE 6Decomposition results of air passenger volume of Shanghai Pudong International Airport and the corresponding two keyword sequences.
Hyperparameter selection of Bayesian bidirectional long short-term memory neural network (BiLSTM) model.
| Parameter | Value |
| Activation function | {“sigmoid”, “tanh”, “relu”, “linear”} |
| Number of neurons in the hidden layer | 6 |
| Number of iterations | {500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000} |
| Learning rate | {0.1, 0.01, 0.001} |
| Batch size | 1/2 of the number of training samples |
| Objective function | Mean square error (MSE) |
| Optimization algorithm | Adam |
Comparison of prediction results of all the models.
| Model | SPIA | BCIA | ||||
| MAE | MAPE (%) | RMSE | MAE | MAPE (%) | RMSE | |
| ➀ MIC_MEMD_BiLSTM | 10.31 | 1.62 | 11.73 | 12.20 | 1.46 | 14.21 |
| ➁ EEMD_BiLSTM | 11.93 | 1.88 | 14.20 | 13.60 | 1.61 | 17.06 |
| ➂ MIC_BiLSTM | 11.56 | 1.84 | 12.77 | 14.41 | 1.71 | 21.22 |
| ➃ BiLSTM | 13.92 | 2.21 | 15.52 | 20.18 | 2.41 | 24.46 |
| ➄ SARIMA | 16.38 | 2.62 | 20.57 | 23.72 | 2.88 | 27.30 |
| ➅ HW | 15.83 | 2.49 | 20.34 | 18.50 | 2.25 | 23.41 |
Diebold-Mariano (DM) test results of different models for Shanghai Pudong International Airport (SPIA) dataset.
| Target model | Benchmark model | ||||
| ➁ EEMD_BiLSTM | ➂ MIC_BiLSTM | ➃ BiLSTM | ➄ SARIMA | ➅ HW | |
| ➀ MIC_MEMD_BiLSTM | −0.9602 (0.1685) | −1.5926 (0.0556) | −1.5049 (0.0662) | −1.9787 (0.0239) | −1.3772 (0.0842) |
| ➁ EEMD_BiLSTM | −0.0209 (0.4917) | −0.5669 (0.2854) | −1.2978 (0.0972) | −0.9495 (0.1712) | |
| ➂ MIC_BiLSTM | −0.4872 (0.3130) | −1.6397 (0.0505) | −1.0040 (0.1577) | ||
| ➃ BiLSTM | −1.2994 (0.0969) | −0.8143 (0.2077) | |||
| ➄ SARIMA | 0.0613 (0.5244) | ||||
The numbers in the table without ◯ are DM statistics, and the numbers in () are corresponding p-values.
Diebold-Mariano test results of different models for Beijing Capital International Airport (BCIA) dataset.
| Target model | Benchmark model | ||||
| ➁ EEMD_BiLSTM | ➂ MIC_BiLSTM | ➃ BiLSTM | ➄ SARIMA | ➅ HW | |
| ➀ MIC_MEMD_BiLSTM | −08176 (0.2068) | −1.2720 (0.1017) | −1.9235 (0.0272) | −2.2517 (0.0122) | −1.5769 (0.0574) |
| ➁ EEMD_BiLSTM | −0.7079 (0.2395) | −1.2356 (0.1083) | −1.7265 (0.0421) | −1.1504 (0.1250) | |
| ➂ MIC_BiLSTM | −1.6093 (0.0538) | −0.8516 (0.1972) | −0.4483 (0.3270) | ||
| ➃ BiLSTM | −0.463 (0.3217) | −0.0422 (0.4832) | |||
| ➄ SARIMA | 1.5877 (0.9438) | ||||
The numbers in the table without ◯ are DM statistics, and the numbers in () are corresponding p-values.