# Identification of Critical Road Links Based on Static and Dynamic Features [PERSON]
## 5 Experimental Results
### Performance and Comparison
Compared to Deepwalk and Node2 vec, although TraLink2 vec did not achieve the best performance during short intervals (T = 5 min) and hollow periods, the difference between its performance and the best method can be negligible. This suggests that TraLink2 vec is capable of capturing the latent information of urban structures even during periods with no apparent traffic travel characteristics and is also effective in identifying critical road links. As the time interval increases, TraLink2 vec demonstrates superior performance compared to other methods in identifying critical road links. Particularly in the evaluation with a time interval of 30 min, TraLink2 vec significantly outperforms other baseline methods. This suggests that as the time interval increases, TraLink2 vec, utilizing both the network structure and dynamic travel, can capture the hidden features in the traffic system and accurately identify critical road links in the city through the clustering method. Furthermore, as the proportion of removed link nodes increases, the performance gap between TraLink2 vec and other methods widens. When the proportion of removed link nodes reaches 70%, the traffic network efficiency ratio of TraLink2 vec is approximately between 0.25 and 0.3, indicating that removing less than 25% of link nodes will cause the network to collapse. On the other hand, when other methods with the same proportion of link nodes are removed, the traffic network efficiency is between 0.3 and 0.5. These results \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Proportion** \\ **of Links** \\ **Removed** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**The Traffic Network Efficiency Ratio**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & **DCI** & **SF** & **Deepwalk** & **Node2 vec** & **TraLink2 vec** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Morming Rush} & 10\% & 0.876 & 0.923 & 0.82 & 0.88 & **0.801** \\  & 30\% & 0.739 & 0.778 & 0.587 & 0.593 & **0.483** \\  & 50\% & 0.526 & 0.573 & 0.432 & 0.455 & **0.366** \\  & 70\% & 0.319 & 0.391 & 0.331 & 0.297 & **0.274** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Hollow} & 10\% & 0.946 & 0.931 & **0.854** & 0.906 & 0.857 \\  & 30\% & 0.773 & 0.798 & 0.674 & 0.662 & **0.599** \\  & 50\% & 0.553 & 0.596 & 0.527 & 0.509 & **0.505** \\  & 70\% & 0.403 & 0.472 & 0.486 & 0.404 & **0.261** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Evening Rush} & 10\% & 0.918 & 0.936 & 0.898 & 0.907 & **0.845** \\  & 30\% & 0.744 & 0.77 & 0.682 & 0.647 & **0.592** \\ \cline{1-1}  & 50\% & 0.517 & 0.63 & 0.497 & 0.488 & **0.465** \\ \cline{1-1}  & 70\% & 0.377 & 0.437 & 0.43 & 0.408 & **0.284** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Performance of road link node importance evaluation in different methods (T = 30 min). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Proportion** \\ **of Links** \\ **Removed** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**The Traffic Network Efficiency Ratio**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & **DCI** & **SF** & **Deepwalk** & **Node2 vec** & **TraLink2 vec** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Morming Rush} & 10\% & 0.917 & 0.946 & 0.915 & 0.82 & **0.805** \\  & 30\% & 0.683 & 0.714 & 0.607 & 0.697 & **0.442** \\  & 50\% & 0.558 & 0.578 & 0.439 & **0.379** & 0.384 \\  & 70\%  
demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method in accurately identifying critical road links in the traffic system.