Evaluating the Performance of Algorithms for the Detection of Travel Time Outliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several technologies—including automatic license plate readers, cell phone probes, dedicated Global Positioning System probes, the automatic identification of vehicles equipped with transponders or toll tags, and Bluetooth detectors—can acquire vehicle travel times. The travel times measured by all these technologies contain errors and biases. As a result, several filtering and outlier detection algorithms have been proposed to identify erroneous data and to exclude them from the analysis. However, it is difficult to assess the performance of an outlier detection algorithm in absolute terms or relative to any other algorithm through the use of field data because the true travel times are unknown. Furthermore, it is not possible to identify how well the algorithm can identify a given source of outliers. In this paper a framework is proposed for the evaluation of algorithms that detect travel time outliers. The framework can be customized to address the specific characteristics of any travel time sensor technology. However, in this paper the framework is demonstrated through its application to travel times acquired by Bluetooth detectors on arterial roadways. The framework is used to evaluate the performance characteristics of two outlier detection algorithms proposed by Dion and Rakha. The results show the performance characteristics of both algorithms for a wide range of operating conditions. One of the algorithms is shown to have an approximately 30% likelihood of providing worse results than if no outlier detection algorithm is used. The other algorithm is shown to provide improvements under almost all conditions, with a relative improvement of up to 60%.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".