New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Coalescing undermines the integrity of the network #126

Open
kuanb opened this Issue Jan 23, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@kuanb
Copy link
Owner

kuanb commented Jan 23, 2019

In posts such as this one (http://kuanbutts.com/2018/04/01/spectral-cluster-transit/) and elsewhere, I have suggested that coalescing networks can improve speed.

This is true, but accuracy is sacrificed on graphs like a transit network.

In cases, such as a walk network, such a naive coalesce operation might be acceptable.

In the case of a transit network, we might effectively prune out critical edges such as those for providing transfers between routes (e.g. creating "free," immediate transfers from one line to another), thus artificially increasing accessibility.

This needs to be called out at least in a comment in the method. Better would be a way of improving the method to account for the transfer costs and keep different routes segmented.

@kuanb kuanb self-assigned this Jan 23, 2019

@kuanb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

kuanb commented Jan 23, 2019

Thanks for noting this, @yiyange

@yiyange

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

yiyange commented Feb 6, 2019

Profiled this operation's impacts on one accessibility measure (number of jobs each parcel get reach within a cost bound):

  • x-axis: Parcel IDs sorted by access to jobs. Parcels on the left have less accessibility to jobs (given the full walk network)
  • y-axis: number of jobs accessible given a cost bound
  • bottom "line" in grey is the accessibility measure on full network.
    image
    Note: this is using mean of grouped edge weights (see PR #127)
@yiyange

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

yiyange commented Feb 6, 2019

Also tested on using MAX rather than AVG of grouped edge lengths -- using max generally brings down accessibility measure as expected
image

Seemingly it does not create a lot overly low accessibility measures but that needs further testing because that is a function of cost bound. For example, using max weight length has less impacts when we look at access to jobs within 60 mins than access to jobs within 20 mins.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment