A Complex Network Methodology for Travel Demand Model Evaluation and Validation

Abstract

Travel demand can be viewed as a weighted and directed graph where nodes are the origins and destinations and links represent the trips between nodes. This paper presents a network-theoretic methodology to evaluate and validate travel demand models. We apply the proposed method on three disaggregate travel demand models from Melbourne, Australia. Statistical properties of the modeled networks are compared against the observed networks over time. The new approach reveals the network structure and connectivity of the modeled trips that are not usually captured by traditional evaluation and validation methods. Results demonstrate the complexity involved in the development, evaluation, and validation of travel demand models, which calls for advanced evaluation techniques reflecting a wide range of attributes of the observed and modeled data, travelers, mobility patterns, and complex network characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Abbreviations

N :

Number of nodes in the network

L :

Number of edges in the network

T :

Total number of trips

δ :

Network connectivity (2 L/N2)

a ij :

Elements of the adjacency matrix

a w ij :

Elements of the weighted adjacency matrix

F i :

Flux of a given node i

k i :

Degree of a given node i

w ij :

Weight of a given edge between node i and node j

c i :

Clustering coefficient of a given node i

b i :

Betweenness centrality of a given node i

b ij :

Betweenness centrality of a given edge between node i and node j

F〉 :

Mean node flux in the network

k〉 :

Mean node degree in the network

w〉 :

Mean edge weight in the network

c〉 :

Mean clustering coefficient in the network

wc〉 :

Mean weighted clustering coefficient in the network

CV(F) :

Coefficient of variation of node flux in the network

CV(k) :

Coefficient of variation of node degree in the network

CV(w) :

Coefficient of variation of edge weight in the network

C :

Network clustering coefficient

d T :

Average shortest path

wd T :

Average weighted shortest path

φ :

Network diameter

:

Weighted network diameter

ξ :

Network dissimilarity

References

  1. Axhausen KW (2000) Activity-based modelling: Research directions and possibilities, New Look at Multi-Modal Modeling. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, Cambridge and Oxford

  2. Axhausen K, Garling T (1992) Activity-based approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems. Transp Rev 12(4):323–341

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bazzani A, Giorgini B, Rambaldi S, Gallotti R, Giovannini L (2010). Statistical laws in urban mobility from microscopic GPS data in the area of Florence. J. Stat. Mech., P05001

    Google Scholar 

  4. Betty M (2013) The New Science of Cities. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowman JL, Ben-Akiva ME (2001) Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model system with activity schedules. Transp Res A 35:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  6. Breiman L (1996) Bagging Predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Google Scholar 

  8. Breiman L, Cutler A (2004) Random Forests. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley

  9. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CI (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth Statistics/Probability. Chapman and Hall/CRC

  10. Brockmann D, Hufnagel L, Geisel T (2006) The scaling laws of human travel. Nature 439:462–465

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castiglione J, Bradley M, Gliebe J (2015) Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. No. SHRP 2 Report S2-C46-RR-1

  12. Chen C, Ma J, Susilo Y, Liu Y, Wang M (2016) The promises of big data and small data for travel behavior (aka human mobility) analysis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 68:285–299

    Google Scholar 

  13. Colak S, Schneider CM, Wang P, González MC (2013) On the role of spatial dynamics and topology on network flows. New J Phys 15:113037

    Google Scholar 

  14. Çolak S, Alexander LP, Alvim BG, Mehndiretta SR, González MC (2015) Analyzing Cell Phone Location Data for Urban Travel: Current Methods, Limitations and Opportunities. Transportation Research Records 2526:126–135

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cherchi E, Cirillo C (2010) Validation and forecasts in models estimated from multiday travel survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2175:57–64

    Google Scholar 

  16. Do TMT, Gatica-Pereza D (2014) Where and what: Using smartphones to predict next locations and applications in daily life. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 12:79–91

    Google Scholar 

  17. Erath A, Lochl M, Axhausen K (2009) Graph-Theoretical Analysis of the Swiss Road and Railway Networks Over Time. Networks and Spatial Economics 9(3):379–400

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faloutsos M, Faloutsos P, Faloutsos C (1999) On Power-Law Relationships of the Internet Topology. In: In Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communications (SIGCOMM). ACM Press, New York, pp 251–262

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fan Y, Khattak A (2008) Urban form, individual spatial footprints, and travel: examination of space-use behavior. Transp Res Rec 2082:98–106

    Google Scholar 

  20. Federal Highway Administration (2010) Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual. Second Edition. Last accessed July via 2016.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/tmip/publications/other_reports/validation_and_reasonableness_2010/fhwahep10042.pdf

  21. Florian M, Nguyen S (1976) An application and validation of equilibrium trip assignment methods. Transp Sci 10(4):374–390

    Google Scholar 

  22. Flötteröd G, Chen Y, Nagel K (2012) Behavioral Calibration and Analysis of a Large-Scale Travel Microsimulation. Networks and Spatial Economics 12(4):481–502

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ghasri M, Rashidi TH, Waller ST (2017) Developing a disaggregate travel demand system of models using data mining techniques. Transp Res A Policy Pract 105:138–153

    Google Scholar 

  24. González MC, Hidalgo CA, Barabási AL (2008) Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453:779–782

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hamedmoghadam H, Steponavice I, Ramezani M, Saberi M (2017) A Complex Network Analysis of Macroscopic Structure of Taxi Trips. In Proceedings of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC), Toulouse, France, July 9–14

  26. Hasan S, Schneider CM, Ukkusuri SV, González MC (2013) Spatio-temporal patterns of urban human mobility. J Stat Phys 151(1–2):304–318

    Google Scholar 

  27. Iqbal MS, Choudhury CF, Wang P, González MC (2014) Development of Origin-Destination Matrices Using Mobile Phone Call Data. Transportation Research C 40:63–74

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jiang B, Yin J, Zhao S (2009) Characterizing the human mobility pattern in a large street network. Phys Rev E 80:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang S, Yang Y, Fiore G, Ferreira J, Frazzoli E, González MC (2013) A review of urban computing for mobile phone traces: Current methods, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international workshop on urban computing

  30. Liang X, Zheng X, Lv W, Zhu T, Xu K (2012) The scaling of human mobility by taxis is exponential. Physica A 391:2135–2144

    Google Scholar 

  31. Md K, Hine J (2012) Analysis of rural activity spaces and transport disadvantage using a multimethod approach. Transp Policy 19(1):105–120

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kang C, Ma X, Tong D, Liu Y (2012) Intra-urban human mobility patterns: An urban morphology perspective. Physica A 391:1702–1717

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kelley R, Ideker T (2005) Systematic interpretation of genetic interactions using protein networks. Nat Biotechnol 23:561–566

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kim JW, Lee BH, Shaw MJ, Chang HL, Nelson M (2001) Application of decision-tree induction techniques to personalized advertisements on internet storefronts. Int J Electron Commer 5(3):45–62

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kullback S, Leibler RA (1951) On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 22(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kullback S (1959) Information Theory and Statistics. Wiley, New York; Chapman and Hall, London

  37. Lam WHK, Huang HJ (2003) Combined Activity/Travel Choice Models: Time Dependent and Dynamic Versions. Network and Spatial Economics 3(3):323–347

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liu F, Janssens D, Cui JX, Wang YP, Wets G, Cools M (2014) Building a validation measure for activity-based transportation models based on mobile phone data. Expert Syst Appl 41(14):6174–6189

    Google Scholar 

  39. Newman M (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98(2):404–409

    Google Scholar 

  40. Newman M (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  41. Newman M, Park J (2003) Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys Rev E 68(3):036122

    Google Scholar 

  42. Noulas A, Scellato S, Lambiotte R, Pontil M, Mascolo C (2012) A Tale of Many Cities: Universal Patterns in Human Urban Mobility. PLoS One 7(5):e37027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Patuelli R, Reggiani A, Gorman S, Nijkamp P, Bade FJ (2007) Network Analysis of Commuting Flows: A Comparative Static Approach to German Data. Networks and Spatial Economics 7(4):315–331

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peng C, Jin X, Wong K-C, Shi M, Liò P (2012) Collective Human Mobility Pattern from Taxi Trips in Urban Area. PLoS One 7:e34487

    Google Scholar 

  45. Raney B, Cetin N, Vollmy A, Vrtic M, Axhausen K, Nagel K (2003) An Agent-Based Microsimulation Model of Swiss Travel: First Results. Networks and Spatial Economics 3(1):23–41

    Google Scholar 

  46. Roorda MJ, Miller EJ, Habib KMN (2008) Validation of TASHA: A 24-H activity scheduling microsimulation model. Transp Res A Policy Pract 42(2):360–375

    Google Scholar 

  47. Roth C, Kang SM, Batty M, Barthélemy M (2011) Structure of urban movements: polycentric activity and entangled hierarchical flows. PLoS One 6:e15923

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rual JF, Venkatesan K, Hao T, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Dricot A, Li N, Berriz GF, Gibbons FD, Dreze M, Ayivi-Guedehoussou N, Klitgord N, Simon C, Boxem M, Milstein S, Rosenberg J, Goldberg DS, Zhang LV, Wong SL, Franklin G, Li S, Albala JS, Lim J, Fraughton C, Llamosas E, Cevik S, Bex C, Lamesch P, Sikorski RS, Vandenhaute J, Zoghbi HY, Smolyar A, Bosak S, Sequerra R, Doucette-Stamm L, Cusick ME, Hill DE, Roth FP, Vidal M (2005) Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature 437(7062):1173–1178

    Google Scholar 

  49. Saberi M, Mahmassani H, Brockmann D, Hosseini A (2016) A Complex Network Perspective for Characterizing Urban Travel Demand Patterns: Graph Theoretical Analysis of Large-Scale Origin-Destination Demand Networks. Transportation 44(6):1383–1402

    Google Scholar 

  50. Saberi M, Ghamami M, Gu Y, Shojaei MHS, Fishman E (2018) Understanding the impacts of a public transit disruption on bicycle sharing mobility patterns: A case of Tube strike in London. Journal of Transport Geography 66:154-166.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schintler L, Kulkarni R, Gorman S, Stough R (2007) Using Raster-Based GIS and Graph Theory to Analyze Complex Networks. Networks and Spatial Economics 7(4):301–313

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sammour G, Bellemans T, Vanhoof K, Janssens D, Kochan B, Wets G (2012) The usefulness of the sequence alignment methods in validating rule-based activity-based forecasting models. Transportation 39(4):773–789

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schneider CM, Belik V, Couronné T, Smoreda Z, González MC (2013) Unravelling daily human mobility motifs. J R Soc Interface 10:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schonfelder A, Axhausen KW (2003) Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transp Policy 10(4):273–286

    Google Scholar 

  55. Siganos G, Faloutsos M, Faloutsos P, Faloutsos C (2003) Power laws and the AS-level internet topology. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 11(4):514–524

    Google Scholar 

  56. Simini F, González MC, Maritan A, Barabási AL (2012) A universal model for mobility and migration patterns. Nature 484:96–100

    Google Scholar 

  57. Song C, Koren T, Wang P, Barabási A (2010) Modelling the scaling properties of human mobility. Nat Phys 6:818–823

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thiemann C, Theis F, Grady D, Brune R, Brockmann D (2010) The Structure of Borders in a Small World. PLoS One 5(11):e15422

    Google Scholar 

  59. Toole JL, Colak S, Sturt B, Alexandre L, Evsukoff A, González MC (2015) The Path Most Travelled: Travel Demand Estimation Using Big Data Resources. Transportation Research C 58:162–177

    Google Scholar 

  60. Viljoen N, Joubert J (2017) The Road most Travelled: The Impact of Urban Road Infrastructure on Supply Chain Network Vulnerability. Networks and Spatial Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-017-9370-1

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vovsha P, Bradley M, Bowman J (2004) Activity-based travel forecasting models in the United States: Progress since 1995 and Prospects for the Future. In the EIRASS Conference on Progress in Activity-Based Analysis, May 28–31, Vaeshartelt Castle, Maastricht

  62. Wang P, Hunter T, Bayen A, Schechtner K, González MC (2012) Understanding Road Usage Patterns in Urban Areas. Sci Rep 2. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01001

  63. Watts DJ (2003) Six degrees. In: The science of a connected age. W. W. Norton & Co. Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wegmann F, Everett J (2008) Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for State of Tennessee. Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

  65. Widhalm P, Yang Y, Ulm M, Athavale S, González MC (2015) Discovering urban activity patterns in cell phone data. Transportation 42(4):597–623

    Google Scholar 

  66. Woolley-Meza O, Thiemann C, Grady D, Lee JJ, Seebens H, Blasius B, Brockmann D (2011) Complexity in human transportation networks: A comparative analysis of worldwide air transportation and global cargo ship movements. Eur Phys J B 84:589–600

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wu CH, Ho JM, Lee DT (2004) Travel-time prediction with support vector regression. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 5(4):276–281

    Google Scholar 

  68. Xie F, Levinson D (2009) Modeling the Growth of Transportation Networks: A Comprehensive Review. Networks and Spatial Economics 9(3):291–307

    Google Scholar 

  69. Yook SH, Jeong H, Barabasi AL (2002) Modeling the Internet's large-scale topology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States (PNAS) 99(22):13382–13386

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meead Saberi.

Appendix A

Appendix A

The node degree k is the number of links connected to a node in a network where aij are elements in the adjacency matrix.

$$ {k}_i=\sum \limits_j{a}_{ij} $$
(8)

The node flux F is the number of trips starting or ending at a node where wij represents the weight or the number of trips between each pair of nodes.

$$ \kern0.5em {F}_i=\sum \limits_j{w}_{ij} $$
(9)

The clustering coefficient c for node i is calculated as the number of triangles in the graph that pass through a node.

$$ {c}_i=\frac{\left( number\ of\ pairs\ of\ neighbors\ of\ i\ that\ are\ connected\right)}{\left( number\ of\ pairs\ of\ neighbors\ of\ i\right)} $$
(10)

The network clustering coefficient C is a global measure of the extent to which nodes in a network are clustered. C is calculated as a ratio of the number of triangles to the number of connected triples of nodes, expressed as:

$$ C=\frac{\left( number\ of\ triangles\right)\times 3}{\left( number\ of\ connected\ triples\right)} $$
(11)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saberi, M., Rashidi, T.H., Ghasri, M. et al. A Complex Network Methodology for Travel Demand Model Evaluation and Validation. Netw Spat Econ 18, 1051–1073 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-018-9397-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Travel demand modeling
  • Evaluation
  • Validation
  • Complex networks
  • Structure
  • Connectivity