![Estimation of missing traffic counts using factor, genetic, neural, and regression techniques [An article from: Transportation Research Part C]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/noimage.jpg)
Estimation of missing traffic counts using factor, genetic, neural, and regression techniques [An article from: Transportation Research Part C]
Book Details
Author(s)M. Zhong, P. Lingras, S. Sharma
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000RQZX7C
ISBN-13978B000RQZX71
MarketplaceFrance 🇫🇷
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Transportation Research Part C, published by Elsevier in 2004. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
Analyses from some of the highway agencies show that up to 50% permanent traffic counts (PTCs) have missing values. It will be difficult to eliminate such a significant portion of data from traffic analysis. Literature review indicates that the limited research uses factor or autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for predicting missing values. Factor-based models tend to be less accurate. ARIMA models only use the historical data. In this study, genetically designed neural network and regression models, factor models, and ARIMA models were developed. It was found that genetically designed regression models based on data from before and after the failure had the most accurate results. Average errors for refined models were lower than 1% and the 95th percentile errors were below 2% for counts with stable patterns. Even for counts with relatively unstable patterns, average errors were lower than 3% in most cases.
Description:
Analyses from some of the highway agencies show that up to 50% permanent traffic counts (PTCs) have missing values. It will be difficult to eliminate such a significant portion of data from traffic analysis. Literature review indicates that the limited research uses factor or autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for predicting missing values. Factor-based models tend to be less accurate. ARIMA models only use the historical data. In this study, genetically designed neural network and regression models, factor models, and ARIMA models were developed. It was found that genetically designed regression models based on data from before and after the failure had the most accurate results. Average errors for refined models were lower than 1% and the 95th percentile errors were below 2% for counts with stable patterns. Even for counts with relatively unstable patterns, average errors were lower than 3% in most cases.
