Toward Understanding and Reducing Errors in Real-Time Estimation of Travel Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the increased deployment of the infrastructure of intelligent transportation systems has enabled the provision of real-time traveler information to the public. Many states as well as private contractors are providing real-time travel-time estimates to commuters to help improve the quality and efficiency of their trips. Accuracy of travel-time estimates is important: inaccurate estimates can be detrimental to travelers, particularly when such estimates are less accurate than a person's ability to predict traffic on the basis of experience. Improving the accuracy of real-time estimates involves identifying and understanding the sources of error. The errors found during the evaluation of real-time travel-time estimates in Portland, Oregon, were explored and solutions are provided for reducing estimation error. The midpoint algorithm used by the Oregon Department of Transportation was used to estimate travel times from speeds obtained from loop detectors. The estimates were assessed for accuracy by comparisons with ground truth probe vehicle runs. The findings from the study indicate that 85% of the travel-time runs had errors less than 20% and, further, that accuracy varied widely between segments. The evaluation of high-error runs revealed the main causes of errors as transition traffic conditions, failure of detectors, and detector spacing. Potential solutions were identified for each source of error. In addition, a method was tested for evaluating the benefits of additional detectors by simulation of virtual detectors. The results indicated that additional detection helps in reducing the mean average percentage error in most cases, but the location of detectors is critical to error reduction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".