Exploring Travel Time Distribution and Variability Patterns Using Probe Vehicle Data: Case Study in Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring travel time distribution and variability patterns is essential for reliable route choices and sophisticated traffic management and control. State-of-the-art studies tend to treat different types of roads equally, which fails to provide more detailed analysis of travel time characteristics for each specific road type. In this study, based on a vast amount of probe vehicle data, 200 links inside the Third Ring Road of Beijing, China, were investigated. Four types of roads were covered including urban expressways, auxiliary roads of urban expressways, major roads, and secondary roads. The day-of-week distributions of unit distance travel time were first analyzed. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Anderson-Darling test, and chi-squared test were employed to test the goodness-of-fit of different distributions and the results showed lognormal distribution was best-fitted for different time periods and road types compared with normal, gamma, and Weibull distribution. In addition, four reliability measures, that is, unit distance travel time, coefficient of variation, buffer time index, and punctuality rate, were used to explore the day-of-week travel time variability patterns. The results indicated that urban expressways, auxiliary roads of urban expressways, and major roads have regular and distinct morning and afternoon peaks on weekdays. It is noteworthy that in daytime the travel times on auxiliary roads of urban expressways and major roads share similar variability patterns and appear relatively stable and reliable, while urban expressways have most reliable travel times at night. The results of analysis help enable a better understanding of the volatile travel time characteristics of each road type in urban network.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".