Modeling distributions of travel time variability for bus operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Bus travel time reliability performance influences service attractiveness, operating costs, and system efficiency. Better understanding of the distribution of travel time variability is a prerequisite for reliability analysis. A wide array of empirical studies has been conducted to model distribution of travel times in transport. However, depending on the data tested and approaches applied to examine the fitting performance, different conclusions have been reported. This paper aims to specify the most appropriate distribution model for the day‐to‐day travel time variability by using a novel evaluation approach and set of performance measures. Two important issues are explored using automatic vehicle location data collected on two typical bus routes over 6 months in Brisbane, namely, data aggregation influences on travel time distribution and comprehensive evaluation of performance of distribution models. The decrease of temporal aggregation of travel times tends to increase the normality of distributions. The spatial aggregation of link travel times would break up the link multimodality distributions for a busway route, but unlike for a non‐busway route. The Gaussian mixture models are evaluated as superior to its alternatives in terms of fitting accuracy, robustness, and explanatory power. The reported distribution model shows promise to fit travel times for other services with different operation environments considering its flexibility in fitting symmetric, asymmetric, and multimodal distributions. The improved statistic fitting can support more effective service reliability analysis. Copyright © 2015 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".