Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of quantitative efficiency evaluation methods for transportation networks.

ABSTRACT: An effective evaluation of transportation network efficiency could offer guidance for the optimal control of urban traffic. Based on the introduction and related mathematical analysis of three quantitative evaluation methods for transportation network efficiency, this paper compares the information measured by them, including network structure, traffic demand, travel choice behavior and other factors which affect network efficiency. Accordingly, the applicability of various evaluation methods is discussed. Through analyzing different transportation network examples it is obtained that Q-H method could reflect the influence of network structure, traffic demand and user route choice behavior on transportation network efficiency well. In addition, the transportation network efficiency measured by this method and Braess's Paradox can be explained with each other, which indicates a better evaluation of the real operation condition of transportation network. Through the analysis of the network efficiency calculated by Q-H method, it can also be drawn that a specific appropriate demand is existed to a given transportation network. Meanwhile, under the fixed demand, both the critical network structure that guarantees the stability and the basic operation of the network and a specific network structure contributing to the largest value of the transportation network efficiency can be identified.

SUBMITTER: He Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5388484 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative analysis of quantitative efficiency evaluation methods for transportation networks.

He Yuxin Y Qin Jin J Hong Jian J

PloS one 20170411 4

An effective evaluation of transportation network efficiency could offer guidance for the optimal control of urban traffic. Based on the introduction and related mathematical analysis of three quantitative evaluation methods for transportation network efficiency, this paper compares the information measured by them, including network structure, traffic demand, travel choice behavior and other factors which affect network efficiency. Accordingly, the applicability of various evaluation methods is ...[more]

PMID: 28399165

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple data-analytic methods have been proposed for evaluating gene-expression levels in specific biological pathways, assessing differential expression associated with a binary phenotype. Following Goeman and Bühlmann's recent review, we compared statistical performance of three methods, namely Global Test, ANCOVA Global Test, and SAM-GS, that test "self-contained null hypotheses" Via. subject sampling. The three methods were compared based on a simulation experiment and analyses of three real-world microarray datasets.ResultsIn the simulation experiment, we found that the use of the asymptotic distribution in the two Global Tests leads to a statistical test with an incorrect size. Specifically, p-values calculated by the scaled chi2 distribution of Global Test and the asymptotic distribution of ANCOVA Global Test are too liberal, while the asymptotic distribution with a quadratic form of the Global Test results in p-values that are too conservative. The two Global Tests with permutation-based inference, however, gave a correct size. While the three methods showed similar power using permutation inference after a proper standardization of gene expression data, SAM-GS showed slightly higher power than the Global Tests. In the analysis of a real-world microarray dataset, the two Global Tests gave markedly different results, compared to SAM-GS, in identifying pathways whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines. A proper standardization of gene expression variances is necessary for the two Global Tests in order to produce biologically sensible results. After the standardization, the three methods gave very similar biologically-sensible results, with slightly higher statistical significance given by SAM-GS. The three methods gave similar patterns of results in the analysis of the other two microarray datasets.ConclusionAn appropriate standardization makes the performance of all three methods similar, given the use of permutation-based inference. SAM-GS tends to have slightly higher power in the lower alpha-level region (i.e. gene sets that are of the greatest interest). Global Test and ANCOVA Global Test have the important advantage of being able to analyze continuous and survival phenotypes and to adjust for covariates. A free Microsoft Excel Add-In to perform SAM-GS is available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~yyasui/homepage.html.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A myriad of methods to reverse-engineer transcriptional regulatory networks have been developed in recent years. Direct methods directly reconstruct a network of pairwise regulatory interactions while module-based methods predict a set of regulators for modules of coexpressed genes treated as a single unit. To date, there has been no systematic comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both types of methods. RESULTS: We have compared a recently developed module-based algorithm, LeMoNe (Learning Module Networks), to a mutual information based direct algorithm, CLR (Context Likelihood of Relatedness), using benchmark expression data and databases of known transcriptional regulatory interactions for Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A global comparison using recall versus precision curves hides the topologically distinct nature of the inferred networks and is not informative about the specific subtasks for which each method is most suited. Analysis of the degree distributions and a regulator specific comparison show that CLR is 'regulator-centric', making true predictions for a higher number of regulators, while LeMoNe is 'target-centric', recovering a higher number of known targets for fewer regulators, with limited overlap in the predicted interactions between both methods. Detailed biological examples in E. coli and S. cerevisiae are used to illustrate these differences and to prove that each method is able to infer parts of the network where the other fails. Biological validation of the inferred networks cautions against over-interpreting recall and precision values computed using incomplete reference networks. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that module-based and direct methods retrieve largely distinct parts of the underlying transcriptional regulatory networks. The choice of algorithm should therefore be based on the particular biological problem of interest and not on global metrics which cannot be transferred between organisms. The development of sound statistical methods for integrating the predictions of different reverse-engineering strategies emerges as an important challenge for future research.

Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of quantitative efficiency evaluation methods for transportation networks.

Publications

Comparative analysis of quantitative efficiency evaluation methods for transportation networks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets