Forecasting primary delay recovery of high-speed railway using multiple linear regression, supporting vector machine, artificial neural network, and random forest regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate prediction of recoverable train delay can support the train dispatchers’ decision-making with timetable rescheduling and improving service reliability. In this paper, we present the results of an effort aimed to develop primary delay recovery (PDR) predictor model using train operation records from Wuhan-Guangzhou (W-G) high-speed railway. To this end, we first identified the main variables that contribute to delay, including dwell buffer time, running buffer time, magnitude of primary delay time, and individual sections’ influence. Different models are applied and calibrated to predict the PDR. The validation results on test datasets indicate that the random forest regression (RFR) model outperforms the other three alternative models, namely, multiple linear regression (MLR), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN) regarding prediction accuracy measure. Specifically, the evaluation results show that when the prediction tolerance is less than 1 min, the RFR model can achieve up to 80.4% of prediction accuracy, while the accuracy level is 44.4%, 78.5%, and 78.5% for MLR, SVM, and ANN models, respectively.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it