Transfer Probability Prediction for Traffic Flow with Bike Sharing Data: A Deep Learning Approach

  • Wenwen TuEmail author
  • Hengyi LiuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 943)


As the fourth generation sharing bike, the dockless sharing bike is equipped with an electronic lock on the rear wheel. Since the dockless sharing bike system does not require the construction of specific infrastructures, it has become one of the important travel modes for residents. The distribution pattern of the use of shared bikes can capably represent the travel demands of the residents. However, since the number of sharing bikes is very large, the trajectory data that contains a large number of sparsely distributed data and noise. It results in high computational complexity and low computational accuracy. To address this problem, a novel deep learning algorithm is proposed for predicting the transfer probability of traffic flow of Shared Bikes. A stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM)-Support Vector Regression (SVR) deep learning algorithm is proposed; a heuristic and hybrid optimization algorithm is utilized to optimize the parameters in this deep learning algorithm. In the experimental case, the real shared bikes data was used to confirm the performance of the proposed algorithm. By making comparisons, it revealed that the stacked RBM-SVR algorithm, with the help of the hybrid optimization algorithm, outperformed the SVR algorithm and the stacked RBM-SVR algorithm.


Shared bikes Transfer probability of traffic flow Stacked RBM 


  1. 1.
    Vogel, P., Greiser, T., Mattfeld, D.C.: Understanding bike-sharing systems using data mining: exploring activity patterns. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 20, 514–523 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu, Y., Zhu, D.: Bicycle sharing based on PSS-EPR coupling model: exemplified by bicycle sharing in China. Procedia CIRP 64, 423–428 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fishman, E.J.T.R.: Bikeshare: a review of recent literature. Transp. Rev. 36, 92–113 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inferring dockless shared bike distribution in new cities. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Where Will dockless shared bikes be Stacked?:—Parking hotspots detection in a New City. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dockless bike-sharing reallocation based on data analysis: solving complex problem with simple method. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC) (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chemla, D., Meunier, F., Calvo, R.W.: Bike sharing systems: solving the static rebalancing problem. Discrete Optim. 10, 120–146 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Contardo, C., Morency, C., Rousseau, L.-M.: Balancing a dynamic public bike-sharing system. Cirrelt Montreal (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R.C., Van Hoeve, W.-J.: Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257, 992–1004 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Traffic prediction in a bike-sharing system. In: Proceedings of the Sigspatial International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bicycle-sharing system analysis and trip prediction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Come, E., Randriamanamihaga, N.A., Oukhellou, L., Aknin, P.: Spatio-temporal analysis of dynamic origin-destination data using latent dirichlet allocation: application to vélib’ bike sharing system of paris. In: Trb Annual Meeting (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mobility modeling and prediction in bike-sharing systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinton, G.E., Osindero, S., Teh, Y.-W.: A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Comput. 18, 1527–1554 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinton, G.E., Sejnowski, T.J.: Learning and releaming in boltzmann machines. In: Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1, p. 2 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. In: Proceedings of the Advances in neural information processing systems (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521, 436 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J.S., Henderson, D., Howard, R.E., Hubbard, W., Jackel, L.D.: Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Comput. 1, 541–551 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R.A., Ko, J., Swetter, S.M., Blau, H.M., Thrun, S.J.N.: Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature 542, 115 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi, J., Zheng, X., Li, Y., Zhang, Q., Ying, S.: Multimodal neuroimaging feature learning with multimodal stacked deep polynomial networks for diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf. 22, 173–183 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rafiei, M.H., Adeli, H.J.E.S.: A novel unsupervised deep learning model for global and local health condition assessment of structures. Eng. Struct. 156, 598–607 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hinton, G.E.: Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, pp. 599–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning (ICML-10) (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Restricted Boltzmann machines for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Classification using discriminative restricted Boltzmann machines. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Le Roux, N., Bengio, Y.: Representational power of restricted Boltzmann machines and deep belief networks. Neural Comput. 20, 1631–1649 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Awad, M., Khanna, R.: Support Vector Regression. Apress, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Drucker, H., Burges, C.J.C., Kaufman, L., Smola, A.J., Vapnik, V.: Support vector regression machines. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 28, 779–784 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Travel time prediction with support vector regression. In: Proceedings of the Intelligent Transportation Systems 2003 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A GA-based feature selection and parameters optimization for support vector regression. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Computation (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S.M., Lewis, A.: Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 69, 46–61 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Faris, H., Aljarah, I., Al-Betar, M.A., Mirjalili, S.: Grey wolf optimizer: a review of recent variants and applications, pp. 1–23 (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Precup, R.-E., David, R.-C., Petriu, E.M.: Grey wolf optimizer algorithm-based tuning of fuzzy control systems with reduced parametric sensitivity. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 64, 527–534 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang, B., Zhang, X., Yu, T., Shu, H., Fang, Z.: Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine. Energy Convers. Manag. 133, 427–443 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodríguez, L., Castillo, O., Soria, J., Melin, P., Valdez, F., Gonzalez, C.I., Martinez, G.E., Soto, J.J.A.S.C.: A fuzzy hierarchical operator in the grey wolf optimizer algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 57, 315–328 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Storn, R., Price, K.: Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11, 341–359 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gupta, S., Deep, K.: Soft Computing for Problem Solving, pp. 961–968. Springer, Berlin (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., Yıldız, A.R.: Hybrid real-code population-based incremental learning and differential evolution for many-objective optimisation of an automotive floor-frame. Int. J. Vehicle Des. 73, 20–53 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maučec, M.S., Brest, J.J.S.: A review of the recent use of differential evolution for large-scale global optimization: an analysis of selected algorithms on the CEC 2013 LSGO benchmark suite (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ho-Huu, V., Nguyen-Thoi, T., Truong-Khac, T., Le-Anh, L., Vo-Duy, T.J.N.: An improved differential evolution based on roulette wheel selection for shape and size optimization of truss structures with frequency constraints. Neural Comput. Appl. 29, 167–185 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southwest Jiaotong UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations