Estimation of bus dwell time using univariate time series models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A significant proportion of bus travel time is contributed by dwell time for passenger boarding and alighting. More accurate estimation of bus dwell time (BDT) can enhance efficiency and reliability of public transportation system. Regression and probabilistic models are commonly used in literatures where a set of independent variables are used to define the statistical relationship between BDT and its contributing factors. However, due to technical and monetary constraints, it is not always feasible to collect all the data required for the models to work. More importantly, the contributing factors may vary from one bus route to another. Time series based methods can be of great interest as they require only historical time series data, which can be collected using a facility known as automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. This paper assesses four different time series based methods namely random walk, exponential smoothing, moving average (MA), and autoregressive integrated moving average to model and estimate BDT based on AVL data collected from Auckland. The performances of the proposed methods are ranked based on three important factors namely prediction accuracy, simplicity, and robustness. The models showed promising results and performed differently for central business district (CBD) and non‐CBD bus stops. For CBD bus stops, MA model performed the best, whereas for non‐CBD bus stops, ARIMA model performed the best compared with other time series based models. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".