Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

Modelling public transport trips by radial basis function neural

networks
Hilmi Berk Celikoglu a, , Hikmet Kerem Cigizoglu b
a Technical University of Istanbul, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Division of Transportation, Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey
b Technical University of Istanbul, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Division of Hydraulics, Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey

Received 19 December 2005; received in revised form 28 June 2006; accepted 6 July 2006

Abstract
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are one of the recently explored advanced technologies, which show promise in the area of
transportation engineering. The presented study used two different ANN algorithms, feed forward back-propagation (FFBP) and
radial basis function (RBF), for the purpose of daily trip flow forecasting. The ANN predictions were quite close to the observations
as reflected in the selected performance criteria. The selected stochastic model performance was quite poor compared with ANN
results. It was seen that the RBF neural network did not provide negative forecasts in contrast to FFBP applications. Besides, the
local minima problem faced by some FFBP algorithms was not encountered in RBF networks.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Public transportation; Artificial neural networks; Feed-forward back-propagation algorithm; Radial basis function algorithm; Simulation

1. Introduction
Journey is a one-way movement from a point of origin to a point of destination. The word trip is literally defined
as an outward and return journey, often for a specific purpose [1]. In transport modelling both terms are used
interchangeably. Trips made by motorized vehicles are a major factor in determining the pattern of transportation in an
urban area. As transportation is one of the major components of the service sector, the investments for transportation
have, reasonably, a huge share when the budget of a government is considered. Since the execution of infrastructures
and superstructures of transportation is generally irreversible, the demand analysis for an investment in a system
approach is crucial. By defining the demand for transportation as a potential for traffic flow, the importance of the trip
amounts is clarified.
Modelling transport generally consists of four steps. These are trip generation, trip distribution, modal-split and
flow assignment. In the history, growth factor methods are used to estimate the aggregated zonal trip matrices.
The optimization methods based on different kinds of algorithms are used to assign the estimated flows to routes.
Stochastic methods are used for the modal-splitting stage. For the mode-choice concept generates diversions on trip
flows, studying trip flow forecasting becomes essential in demand analysis.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 2853798; fax: +90 212 2853420.

E-mail addresses: celikoglu@itu.edu.tr (H.B. Celikoglu), cigiz@itu.edu.tr (H.K. Cigizoglu).

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0895-7177/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2006.07.002

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

481

In the past, studies considering the daily trip flows, be it time-series models [2,3] or Kalman filtering models [4],
were employed to forecast traffic volume. Due to the stochastic nature of traffic flow and the strongly non-linear
characteristics of traffic dynamics, methods of artificial intelligence have received much attention since early 90s
and are considered as alternatives for the traditional statistical models. Among these soft computing methods the
neural network (NN) approaches have been commonly applied in a number of areas of transport [5], including traffic
forecasting to predict flow volume as the dependent variable [613].
Smith and Demetsky [6] used an NN model that treated traffic flow as a point process. Yun et al. [8] studied the
relationship in forecasting traffic volume between data characteristics and the forecasting accuracy of different models.
These were a back-propagation network model, a finite impulse response model, and a time-delayed recurrent model,
particularly neural network models. Ishak and Kotha [12] studied the optimization of dynamic neural networks. Zhang
et al. [10] studied the macroscopic modelling of freeway traffic using NNs. Short-term traffic flow prediction based
on NN models was studied in a number of papers [7,9,11,13]. Recently, hybrid models of NN applications have been
studied [14,15].
The artificial neural network (ANN) approach, which is a non-linear black box model, seems to be a useful
alternative for modelling the complex time series. In the majority of the above-mentioned cited papers, feed forward
error back propagation method (FFBP) was employed to train the neural networks. The performance of FFBP
was found superior to conventional statistical and stochastic methods in continuous flow series forecasting [16,17].
However the FFBP algorithm has some drawbacks. They are very sensitive to the selected initial weight values and
may provide performances differing from each other significantly. Another problem faced during the application
of FFBP is the local minima issue. During the training stage the networks are sometimes trapped by the local
error minima preventing them reaching the global minimum. In their work, Maier and Dandy [18] summarized
the methods used in the literature to overcome local minima problem as training a number of networks starting
with different initial weights, the on-line training mode to help the network to escape local minima, inclusion of
the addition of random noise, employment of second order (Newton algorithm, LevenbergMarquardt algorithm)
or global methods (stochastic gradient algorithms, simulated annealing). In the review study of the ASCE Task
Committee [19] other ANN methods such as conjugate gradient algorithms, radial basis function, cascade correlation
algorithm and recurrent neural networks were briefly explained. LevenbergMarquardt algorithm was employed in
FFBP applications included in the presented study [20,21].
The daily trip time series for different purposes usually varies greatly with the time of the day, which is often
classified into peak and off-peak periods. In this study the public transport (PT) trips are reviewed with respect to a
comparison of a stochastic process and two artificial neural networks (ANNs) used as forecasting methods. A feedforward back propagation trained NN model, a radial basis function neural network model, and an auto regressive
model are applied to choose the adequate forecast making method depending on the PT time series data.
2. Neural network methods
In this section, the theoretical basis of the utilized NN methods are summarized in brief.
2.1. Feed-forward back propagation algorithm
In the neural network model, the neuron is the basic component. As shown in Fig. 1, the multi-layer perceptron
structure is a fully interconnected set of layers of neurons. Each neuron of a layer is connected to each neuron of the
next layer so that only forward transmission through the network is possible, from the input layer to the output layer
through the hidden layers.
In this structure the output Yi of each neuron of the nth layer is defined by a derivable non-linear function F:
!
X
Yi = F
w ji yi
(1)
j

where F is the non-linear activation function, w ji are the weights of the connection between the neuron N j and Ni ,
yi is the output of the neuron of the (n 1)th layer.
For each input vector presented to the network, the set of connection weights between the different neurons
determines the answer of the network in the output layer. Partial specifications of the problem (i.e. inputoutput pairs)

482

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

Fig. 1. Configuration of a feed-forward multi-layer perceptron.

allow the measurement of the output error of the network and adjustment of its behaviour. An iterative algorithm
does the adjustment during the training phase of the neural network. During this phase, a selected set of training
patterns is presented to the network. When the network has correctly learned the problem specification (i.e. the error
between the network output and the desired output is minimized), the network can be used in a testing phase with test
pattern vectors. At this stage, the neural network is described by the optimal weight configuration, which means that
it theoretically ensures the output error minimization. The most often used criterion to characterize the best non-linear
mapping (F) is the sum square error between the system output di and model output yi [22]:
E=

m
1X
(di yi )2 .
2 i=1

(2)

Because the form of the mapping F a priori is not known, an approximation is sought. This can be achieved in
a number of ways. For example, one knows the polynomials and trigonometric series are dense in function space
L 2 and can approximate any smooth functions in L 2 on a finite interval [a, b]. The development of ANNs offers an
alternative to these two function approximators. The back-propagation neural network, which has only a finite number
of parameters, can approximate most bounded functions with arbitrary precision [23] and is used here to approximate
F. A multi-layer back-propagation neural network NN(.) R m is a mapping constructed recursively by a vector of
linear/non-linear functions [22]:
NN( , W, ) = [Wn (Wn1 (... (W1 U + 1 )) + n1 ) + n ]

(3)

where n is the number of layers; Wi is the linear operator of proper dimensions where i = 1, . . . , n; i is the bias
vector, where i = 1, . . . , n; U is the input vector of the neural network; is the vector-valued linear/non-linear
mapping (transfer function); W = [W1 , . . . , Wn ]; and = [it , . . . , nt ]t (t denotes vector/matrix transpose) [22].
The average system error or the mean square error (MSE), E, for all input patterns is:
E=

N X
m
1 X
(dni yni )2
2N n=1 i=1

(4)

where dni is the system output value, di , for the nth pattern and yni is the neural network output value, yi , for the nth
pattern.
The term NN is a linear neural network if all of its transfer functions , (x) are linear:
a,b (x) = x +

(5)

and is a non-linear neural network if at least some of its transfer functions are non-linear. A typical non-linear transfer
function is the sigmoid function:
a,b (x) =

1
.
1 ex+

(6)

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

483

Fig. 2. Structure of a radial basis function neural network (RBF).

The weight matrices W1 , W2 , . . . , Wn and bias vectors 1 , 2 , . . . , n are adjusted by a learning rule called
back-propagation. This is a gradient descent method to minimize the output error with respect to the weights and
thresholds [24].
2.2. Radial basis function algorithm
The interpretation of the radial basis function (RBF) method as an artificial neural network consists of three layers:
a layer of input neurons feeding the feature vectors into the network; a hidden layer of RBF neurons, calculating the
outcome of the basis functions; and a layer of output neurons, calculating a linear combination of the basis functions
(Fig. 2). RBF networks are being used for function approximation, pattern recognition, and time series prediction
problems. To mention a few features, such networks have the universal approximation property [25], arise naturally
as regularized solutions of ill-posed problems [26] and are dealt well in the theory of interpolation [27]. Their simple
structure enables learning in stages, and gives a reduction in the training time. This has lead to the application of such
networks to many practical problems. The adjustable parameters of such networks are the receptive field centres (the
location of basis functions), the width (the spread), the shape of the receptive field and the linear output weights. Fig. 2
shows the structure of an RBF neural network.
An RBF network is a feed-forward network with a single layer of hidden units that are fully connected to the linear
output units. Eq. (7) shows the output units ( j ) form a linear combination of the basis (or kernel) functions computed
by the hidden layer nodes.

!
x c j
j (x) = K
.
(7)
j2
Each hidden unit output j is obtained by calculating the closeness of the input to an n-dimensional parameter vector
c j associated with the jth hidden unit; where K is a positive radially symmetric function (kernel) with a unique
maximum at its centre c j and which drops off rapidly to zero away from centre. Activations of such hidden units,
decrease monotonically with the distance from a central point or prototype (local) and are identical for inputs that lie
at a fixed radial distance from the centre (radially symmetric).
A function f : R n R 1 is to be approximated with an RBF network whose structure is given below. The vector
x R n is an input, (x, c j , j ) is the jth function with centre c j R n , width j , and w = (w1 , w2 , . . . , w M ) R M
is the vector of linear output weights and M the number of basis function used. We concatenate the M centres c j R n
to get c = (c1 , c2 , . . . , c M ) R n M and the widths to get = (1 , 2 , . . . , M ) R M . Eq. (8) shows the output of
the network for x R n and R M .
F(x, c, , w) =

M
X
j=1

(w j (x, c j , j )).

(8)

484

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

Table 1
Information on the analysed data set
Type of the data

Region

xmin

xmax

Mean

Standard deviation

Skewness

Observation period

Trip flow
(Lag: 1/2 h;
unit: trips)

Istanbul
metropolitan
area

15

2.367.412

521.13

451.78

0.65

from 01.01.2002
to 30.11.2002

Let (xi , yi ) : i = 1, 2, . . . , N be a set of training pairs and y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , y N )t the desired output vector. For each
c R n M , w R M , R M and for arbitrary weights i , i = 1, 2, . . . , N , which are chosen as non-negative numbers
in order to emphasise certain domains of the input space, set Eq. (9).
E(c, , w) =

N
1X
[i (yi F(xi , c, , w))]2 .
2 i=1

(9)

3. Analysis of data
Since a large number of traffic data are observed in a time series structure, a collection of sequential observations,
time series analysis has been a useful tool for traffic flow prediction. In this study, public transport (PT) trip flow the
averages per half an hour per day using AKBIL (an electronic ticketing system integrated to all PT modes) in Istanbul
metropolitan area (Turkey) are used as time series data. Data of PT trip flows vary within public bus, tram, light rail
transit, metro, sea-bus, and city marine lines modes and are obtained from the observations of the first 11 months of
the year 2002 starting at January 1st and ending at November 30th. The trip flows are considered as person-trips made
by commuters. Data storage had been done continuously for 24 h in a day by an electronic device that is used to check
tickets at vehicle entrance. Since collected data is continuous, an aggregation level of half an hour is selected, hence,
48 data points are processed for one day within the above mentioned data collection period. Table 1 summarizes the
descriptive statistics of the analysed data set.
4. ANN preparation and prediction results
As the objective of our study is the forecast of the half-hourly average trip flows by using ANNs, the analysis
process consisted of two steps, which are training and testing respectively. The prediction problem is transformed into
the following minimum norm problem:
The public transport trip flows prediction problem is transformed into a minimum norm problem: given the
observation vector series (Uk , Yk ), find a back-propagation and an RBF neural network NN(Uk ) such that kP(Uk )
NN(Uk )k2 is minimal, where Yk+1 = P(Uk ). Two codes are written in MATLAB language for FFBP and RBF
simulations. Following the training period the network is applied to the testing data. The ANN performance criteria
are the MSE and the determination coefficient (R 2 ) for the testing stage. The predictions for testing time period are
plotted in the form of time series and scatter plot.
4.1. Preparation of neural network configurations
In this section, the configurations of the applied NN models are summarized.
4.1.1. FFBP neural network
Initially the FFBP method is used for trip prediction. The determination of the number of the hidden layers and the
number of the nodes in the input layer providing best training results was the initial process of the training procedure.
The MSE and the auto-correlation function (ACF) are used as criteria to evaluate the performance of the training
simulations.
In the light of the FFBP method, the solution to the minimum norm problem involves a number of steps. The
first one is the choice of Uk the model inputs; the second is the selection of layers and , and the final step is the
attainment of parameters that minimise the 2-norm.

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

485

Fig. 3. Plot of the autocorrelation function belonging to analysed data set.

The number of input nodes to the neural network model is dependent on the number of the time lags that is
determined by the analysis of the auto-correlation function [28] belonging to examined time series data set. Four time
lags were found sufficient, hence; the input layer consisted of four nodes. The plot of the autocorrelation function
belonging to analysed data set is shown in Fig. 3.
Because the second step is largely a trial-and-error process and experiments involving neural networks with more
than 4 input nodes and more than 3 hidden units didnt show any sizeable improvement in prediction accuracy, a
three-layer, 3 hidden units back-propagation neural network with the sigmoid function , (x) as it is non-linear
transfer function is selected (FFBP(4, 3, 1)). The unique output layer node represented the trips number at time t to
be predicted.
The values of the training inputs and outputs are scaled, xiscaled , between zero and 1 for each NN models as given
in Eq. (10), where xi , xmax and xmin are the original, the maximum and the minimum values respectively.
xiscaled =

xi xmin
.
xmax xmin

(10)

In the training process, the iteration number 90 was found to be sufficient in respect of a fixed MSE value. After the
completion of the training stage, the testing stage took place. The optimum learning, , and the momentum, , rates
are determined after trials observing the MSE produced at the end of the testing stage. When a smaller is selected
the changes to the synaptic weights in the network had been smaller from one iteration to the next by being attained
at the cost of a slower rate of learning. Moreover, the inclusion of the momentum rate prevented the learning process
from terminating in a local minimum of the error surface. It is seen that and should be decreased if the number
of the input and output layers are increased. On the other hand, the iteration number increases by decreasing and
values.
4.1.2. RBF neural network
In order to have a realistic comparison, the RBF neural network is also modelled with four inputs. The target for
evaluation criterion, the sum of square error (SSE), to be reached at the end of the simulations was 0.1. The number
of units (the number of RBFs) for the single hidden layer was 25, and the spread parameter (the width of the RBFs)
was 0.5. The MSE and the coefficient of determination were used as criteria to evaluate the performance of the testing
simulations as in the FFBP application.
4.2. ANN prediction results
The last 348 half-hourly mean PT trip flow values (the interval starts at April 1st and ends at November 30th in the
year 2002) are analysed during the training stage of two neural networks. The first 180 values (the interval starts at
January 1st and ends at March 30th in the year 2002) are then used for the testing phase. The reason for considering

486

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

Table 2
The MSE and determination coefficient values of FFBP and RBF neural network predictions (testing period)
Input layer nodes

Configured FFBP NN

Ut1
Ut1 , Ut2
Ut1 , Ut2 , Ut3
Ut1 , Ut2 , Ut3 , Ut4
Ut1 , Ut2 , Ut3 , Ut4 , Ut5

Configured RBF NN

MSE

R2

MSE

R2

0.003021
0.000490
0.000440
0.000333
0.000421

0.905
0.985
0.987
0.990
0.987

0.003034
0.000633
0.000426
0.000412
0.001251

0.904
0.981
0.987
0.988
0.962

R 2 coefficient of determination.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the observed half-hourly average PT trip flows with RBF NN forecasts (testing period).

the last part of the time series as training data is the existences of higher and lower period maximum and minimum
values, respectively, compared with testing data.
The MSE values for the testing period of each neural network are found as 0.000333 and 0.000412 respectively for
the FFBP and the RBF NNs. The MSEs and the determination coefficients for different orders of time series depending
on the optimum hidden unit number for each order are shown in Table 2. It is clear that the best performance criteria
are obtained for an ANN configuration with four input nodes (Table 2).
The testing period predictions provided by RBF and FFBP are compared with observations in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. The time series and scatter plots showed a quite satisfactory agreement between ANN and observation
values.
Following the ANN forecasts a comparison is made by means of a stochastic model. We employed FFBP and RBF
structures (FFBP(4, 3, 1)) with four inputs in the ANN input layer therefore for the purpose of comparison we selected
an auto-regressive (AR) model of order four which uses 4 past values to forecast a certain trip value. The AR model
of order p, i.e., AR( p), is given by Eq. (11), if there exist constants , 1 , 2 , . . . , p and a white noise {} such that
Eq. (11) is satisfied [29]:
Ut = + 1 Ut1 + 2 Ut2 + + p Ut p + t

(11)

where Ut is the variable at time t of the sequence of zero mean and unit variance, Ut1 , Ut2 , . . . , Ut p are the
previous values of the variable yt ; t is the random number at tth time; and 1 , 2 , . . . , p are the autoregressive
parameters. Data of the period between April 1st and November 30th in the year 2002 (the training period of ANNs)
is used to obtain the AR(4) model. The period between January 1st and March 30th in the year 2002 (the testing period
of ANNs) is used as a partition of data set to make forecasts with the AR(4) model, likewise in NN predictions. The

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

487

Fig. 5. Comparison of the observed half-hourly average PT trip flows with FFBP NN forecasts (testing period).

Fig. 6. Comparison of the observed half-hourly average PT trip flows with AR(4) model forecasts.

results are presented in Fig. 6. The AR(4) is indicated with Eq. (12).
Ut = 2.05121Ut1 1.52353Ut2 + 0.41155Ut3 + 0.04237Ut4 .

(12)

The MSE obtained from the stochastic model was equal to 0.03025, which is significantly higher compared with
the corresponding ANN values (0.000333 and 0.000412). The scatter plot illustrates clearly the deviations from
observations (Fig. 6). The results point out that the ANNs forecasts for the observed values are closer to the original
ones compared with the AR(4) model.
To present the difference between the three forecasting methods (FFBP, RBF and AR(4)) clearly, the testing period
forecasts are plotted with the corresponding observations in Fig. 7.
Both in the peak and off-peak hour periods, the ANNs provided pretty close estimates whereas the AR(4) model
failed by over and under estimating the observations.
The superiority of ANNs over conventional methods in prediction studies can be attributed to the capability of
ANNs to capture the non-linear dynamics and generalize the structure of the whole data set. They are a flexible
alternative and standard ANN software can be used to construct intricate multipurpose nonlinear solutions. The

488

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

Fig. 7. Comparison of the observed half-hourly average PT trip flows with RBF NN, FFBP NN, and AR(4) model forecasts.

method has no limitations in the form of fixed assumptions or formal constraints. The neural network has a distributed
processing structure. Each individual processing unit or the weighted connection between two units is responsible for
one small part of the inputoutput mapping system. Therefore, each component has no more than a marginal influence
with respect to the complete solution and that the mechanism will still function and generate reasonable mappings.
The training time of a single FFBP application is relatively shorter than RBF. However, it is seen that multiple
FFBP simulations are required until obtaining a satisfactory performance criteria since FFBP method performance
is very sensitive to the randomly assigned initial weight values. This total duration for FFBP simulations was longer
than the unique RBF application. In addition the local minima problem in FFBP applications with gradient-descent
training algorithm is not faced in RBF simulations.
5. Conclusions
Prediction of the future PT trip flows is key to developing precautions before the forthcoming investments for
an urban area. In this study two ANN trip flow estimating models are developed and compared with a stochastic
model. Among the studied models, significant improvements in the prediction are made by the neural network models
due to their flexibility to adapt to time-series data. Another advantage of the application of neural networks is being
trained with measurements, hence; the included propagation effects are more realistic. Making forecasts by generating
negative values after trials is a disadvantage of the FFBP algorithm trained neural network. So, the RBF NN with
supervised learning has been assessed during the training process to overcome this drawback. The RBF NN succeeded
by generating non-negative values and closer estimates. Besides, the RBF network did not face the local minima
problem providing prediction results with a single iteration deferring from FFBP method.
References
[1] W.T. McLeod, P. Hanks, The New Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language, William Collins, Sons & Co., Glasgow, 1986.
[2] S.A. Ahmed, A.R. Cook, Analysis of freeway traffic time series data by using BoxJenkins techniques, Transp. Res. Rec. 722 (19) (1979).
[3] H. Shimizu, K. Yamagami, E. Watanabe, Applications of state estimation algorithms to hourly traffic volume system, in: Proceedings of the
Second World Congress on ITS, Yokohama, 1995, pp. 7277.
[4] Y.J. Stephanedes, E. Kwon, Adaptive demand-diversion prediction for integrated control of freeway corridors, Transp. Res., Part C Emerg.
Technol. 1 (l) (1993) 2342.
[5] M.S. Dougherty, A review of neural networks applied to transport, Transp. Res., Part C Emerg. Technol. 3 (4) (1995) 247260.
[6] B.L. Smith, M.J. Demetsky, Short-term traffic flow prediction: Neural network approach, Transp. Res. Rec. 1453 (1994) 98104.
[7] M. Dougherty, M. Cobbett, Short-term inter-urban traffic forecasts using neural networks, Int. J. Forecast. 13 (1) (1997) 2131.
[8] S.Y. Yun, S. Namkoong, J.H. Rho, S.W. Shin, J.U. Choi, A performance evaluation of neural network models in traffic volume forecasting,
Math. Comput. Modelling 27 (911) (1998) 293310.

H.B. Celikoglu, H.K. Cigizoglu / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (2007) 480489

489

[9] R. Yasdi, Prediction of road traffic using a neural network approach, Neural Comput. Appl. 8 (2) (1999) 135142.
[10] H. Zhang, S.G. Ritchie, Z.P. Lo, Macroscopic modeling of freeway traffic using an artificial neural network, Transp. Res. Rec. 1588 (1997)
110119.
[11] H. Chen, S.G. Muller, Use of sequential learning for short-term traffic flow forecasting, Transp. Res., Part C Emerg. Technol. 9 (5) (2001)
319336.
[12] S. Ishak, P. Kotha, Optimization of dynamic neural network performance for short-term traffic predictions, in: 81st Annual Meeting of
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2002.
[13] N. Messai, P. Thomas, D. Lefebvre, A. El Moudni, Optimal neural networks architectures for the flow-density relationships of traffic models,
Math. Comput. Simul. 60 (35) (2002) 401409.
[14] M. Van der Voort, M. Dougherty, S. Watson, Combining Kohonen maps with ARIMA time series models to forecast traffic flow, Transp. Res.
Part C Emerg. Technol. 4 (5) (1996) 307318.
[15] H. Yin, S.C. Wong, J. Xu, C.K. Wong, Urban traffic flow prediction using a fuzzy-neural approach, Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 10
(2) (2002) 8598.
[16] H.K. Cigizoglu, Incorporation of ARMA models into flow forecasting by artificial neural networks, Environmetrics 14 (4) (2003) 417427.
[17] H.K. Cigizoglu, Estimation, forecasting and extrapolation of flow data by artificial neural networks, Hydrol. Sci. J. 48 (3) (2003) 349361.
[18] H.R. Maier, G.C. Dandy, Neural network for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: A review of modelling issues and
applications, Environ. Modelling Softw. 15 (1) (2000) 101124.
[19] ASCE Task Committee, Artificial neural networks in hydrology-I: Preliminary concepts, J. Hydrol. Eng. 5 (2) (2000) 115123.
[20] K. Levenberg, A method for the solution of certain nonlinear problem in least squares, Q. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2 (1944) 164168.
[21] D.W. Marquardt, An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 11 (1963) 431441.
[22] H.M. Zhang, Recursive prediction of traffic conditions with neural network models, J. Transp. Eng. 126 (6) (2000) 472481.
[23] G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, MCSS, Math. Control Signals Systems 2 (4) (1989) 303314.
[24] D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, J.E. Williams, Learning internal representations by error propagation, in: D.E. Rummelhart, J.L. McClelland
(Eds.), Parallel Distributed ProcessingExplorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 1, Foundations MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1986.
[25] J. Park, I.W. Sandberg, Universal approximation using radial basis function networks, Neural Comput. 3 (2) (1991) 246257.
[26] T. Poggio, F. Girosi, Networks for approximation and learning, Proc. IEEE 78 (9) (1990) 14811497.
[27] M.J.D. Powell, Radial basis function for multivariate interpolation, in: J.C. Mason, M.G. Cox (Eds.), A review algorithms for the
approximation of functions and data, Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1987.
[28] K.P. Sudheer, A.K. Gosain, K.S. Ramasastri, A data-driven algorithm for constructing artificial neural network rainfall-runoff models, Hydrol.
Process. 16 (6) (2002) 13251330.
[29] G.E.P. Box, G.M. Jenkins, Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control, Holden Day Inc., San Francisco, California, 1976.