Data-driven models for predicting delay recovery in high-speed rail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main challenges arising in a high-speed railway (HSR) is predicting how fast a train, once delayed, can recover its operation. Accurate prediction of delay recovery in the downstream stations of a HSR line can help train dispatchers make adjustments to the timetables and inform the passengers of the expected delay to improve service reliability and increase passenger satisfaction. In this paper, we present the results of an effort to develop data-driven delay recovery prediction models using train operation records from the Centralized Traffic Control system (CTC) of Wuhan-Guangzhou (W-G) HSR in Guangzhou Railway Bureau. We first identified the main variables that contribute to delay, including total dwell (TD) time, running buffer (RB) time, magnitude of primary delay (PD), and individual sections' influence. Two alternative models, namely, multiple linear regression (MLR) and random forest regression (RFR), are calibrated and evaluated. The validation results on test datasets indicate that both models have good performance, with the RFR model outperforming the MLR in terms of prediction accuracy. Specifically, the evaluation results show that when the prediction tolerance is less than 3 minutes, the RFR model can achieve up to 90.9% of prediction accuracy, while this value is 84.4% for MLR model.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".