IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i24p16844-d1004107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Machine Learning to Child Mode Choice with a Novel Technique to Optimize Hyperparameters

Author

Listed:
  • Hamed Naseri

    (Department of Civil, Geological, and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada)

  • Edward Owen Douglas Waygood

    (Department of Civil, Geological, and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada)

  • Bobin Wang

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

  • Zachary Patterson

    (Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada)

Abstract

Travel mode choice (TMC) prediction is crucial for transportation planning. Most previous studies have focused on TMC in adults, whereas predicting TMC in children has received less attention. On the other hand, previous children’s TMC prediction studies have generally focused on home-to-school TMC. Hence, LIGHT GRADIENT BOOSTING MACHINE (LGBM), as a robust machine learning method, is applied to predict children’s TMC and detect its determinants since it can present the relative influence of variables on children’s TMC. Nonetheless, the use of machine learning introduces its own challenges. First, these methods and their performance are highly dependent on the choice of “hyperparameters”. To solve this issue, a novel technique, called multi-objective hyperparameter tuning (MOHPT), is proposed to select hyperparameters using a multi-objective metaheuristic optimization framework. The performance of the proposed technique is compared with conventional hyperparameters tuning methods, including random search, grid search, and “Hyperopt”. Second, machine learning methods are black-box tools and hard to interpret. To overcome this deficiency, the most influential parameters on children’s TMC are determined by LGBM, and logistic regression is employed to investigate how these parameters influence children’s TMC. The results suggest that MOHPT outperforms conventional methods in tuning hyperparameters on the basis of prediction accuracy and computational cost. Trip distance, “walkability” and “bikeability” of the origin location, age, and household income are principal determinants of child mode choice. Furthermore, older children, those who live in walkable and bikeable areas, those belonging low-income groups, and short-distance travelers are more likely to travel by sustainable transportation modes.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamed Naseri & Edward Owen Douglas Waygood & Bobin Wang & Zachary Patterson, 2022. "Application of Machine Learning to Child Mode Choice with a Novel Technique to Optimize Hyperparameters," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-19, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16844-:d:1004107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16844/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16844/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Golob, Thomas F., 2003. "Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Daniel W. Apley & Jingyu Zhu, 2020. "Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1059-1086, September.
    3. Daisik Nam & Jaewoo Cho, 2020. "Deep Neural Network Design for Modeling Individual-Level Travel Mode Choice Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Zhou, Xiaolu & Wang, Mingshu & Li, Dongying, 2019. "Bike-sharing or taxi? Modeling the choices of travel mode in Chicago using machine learning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Miriam Pirra & Marco Diana, 2019. "A study of tour-based mode choice based on a Support Vector Machine classifier," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 23-36, January.
    6. Hamed Naseri & E. Owen D. Waygood & Bobin Wang & Zachary Patterson & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2021. "A Novel Feature Selection Technique to Better Predict Climate Change Stage of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    8. Lu, Jing & Meng, Yucan & Timmermans, Harry & Zhang, Anming, 2021. "Modeling hesitancy in airport choice: A comparison of discrete choice and machine learning methods," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 230-250.
    9. Shenhao Wang & Baichuan Mo & Stephane Hess & Jinhua Zhao, 2021. "Comparing hundreds of machine learning classifiers and discrete choice models in predicting travel behavior: an empirical benchmark," Papers 2102.01130, arXiv.org.
    10. Thomas Klinger & Martin Lanzendorf, 2016. "Moving between mobility cultures: what affects the travel behavior of new residents?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 243-271, March.
    11. Andani, I Gusti Ayu & La Paix Puello, Lissy & Geurs, Karst, 2021. "Modelling effects of changes in travel time and costs of toll road usage on choices for residential location, route and travel mode across population segments in the Jakarta-Bandung region, Indonesia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 81-102.
    12. Youssef M. Aboutaleb & Mazen Danaf & Yifei Xie & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2021. "Discrete Choice Analysis with Machine Learning Capabilities," Papers 2101.10261, arXiv.org.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2011. "The maximum approximate composite marginal likelihood (MACML) estimation of multinomial probit-based unordered response choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 923-939, August.
    14. Khaled J. Assi & Md Shafiullah & Kh Md Nahiduzzaman & Umer Mansoor, 2019. "Travel-To-School Mode Choice Modelling Employing Artificial Intelligence Techniques: A Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Fei Wang & Yili Yu & Xinkang Wang & Hui Ren & Miadreza Shafie-Khah & João P. S. Catalão, 2018. "Residential Electricity Consumption Level Impact Factor Analysis Based on Wrapper Feature Selection and Multinomial Logistic Regression," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Hu, Songhua & Xiong, Chenfeng & Chen, Peng & Schonfeld, Paul, 2023. "Examining nonlinearity in population inflow estimation using big data: An empirical comparison of explainable machine learning models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Xiong, Yingge & Mannering, Fred L., 2013. "The heterogeneous effects of guardian supervision on adolescent driver-injury severities: A finite-mixture random-parameters approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 39-54.
    4. Ali, Azam & Kalatian, Arash & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2023. "Comparing and contrasting choice model and machine learning techniques in the context of vehicle ownership decisions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2021. "A two recursive equation model to correct for endogeneity in latent class binary probit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2016. "Empirical analysis and comparisons about time-allocation patterns across segments based on mode-specific preferences," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 37-51, January.
    7. S. Van Cranenburgh & S. Wang & A. Vij & F. Pereira & J. Walker, 2021. "Choice modelling in the age of machine learning -- discussion paper," Papers 2101.11948, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R. & Astroza, Sebastian & Bhat, Aarti C. & Nagel, Kai, 2016. "Incorporating a multiple discrete-continuous outcome in the generalized heterogeneous data model: Application to residential self-selection effects analysis in an activity time-use behavior model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 52-76.
    9. Sifringer, Brian & Lurkin, Virginie & Alahi, Alexandre, 2020. "Enhancing discrete choice models with representation learning," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 236-261.
    10. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    12. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2016. "Empirical analysis and comparisons about time-allocation patterns across segments based on mode-specific preferences," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 37-51, January.
    13. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    14. Najaf, Pooya & Thill, Jean-Claude & Zhang, Wenjia & Fields, Milton Greg, 2018. "City-level urban form and traffic safety: A structural equation modeling analysis of direct and indirect effects," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 257-270.
    15. Jae Seung Lee & Sungjin Park & Sanghoon Jung, 2016. "Effect of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Measures on Active Living and Fear of Crime," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    17. Brown, Sarah & Greene, William H. & Harris, Mark N. & Taylor, Karl, 2015. "An inverse hyperbolic sine heteroskedastic latent class panel tobit model: An application to modelling charitable donations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-236.
    18. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    19. Ding, Chuan & Wang, Donggen & Liu, Chao & Zhang, Yi & Yang, Jiawen, 2017. "Exploring the influence of built environment on travel mode choice considering the mediating effects of car ownership and travel distance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 65-80.
    20. Ding, Yu & Lu, Huapu, 2016. "Activity participation as a mediating variable to analyze the effect of land use on travel behavior: A structural equation modeling approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 23-28.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16844-:d:1004107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.