MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413332685 · doi:10.1016/j.ejtl.2025.100162

Optimal departure time choices as quantiles and expectiles of the travel time distribution

2025· article· en· W4413332685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Osipenko

Bibliographic record

VenueEURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantileTravel timeDistribution (mathematics)Environmental scienceComputer scienceStatisticsOperations researchEconometricsEngineeringMathematicsTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider two alternative preference specifications for optimal departure time choices: the classical asymmetric linear loss for early and late delays, and a new specification based on asymmetric quadratic loss. We demonstrate that the resulting optimal choices correspond to the tail indices of the travel time distribution—quantiles for the asymmetric linear specification and expectiles for the asymmetric quadratic specification. Additionally, we establish a correspondence between the choices induced by these two utility specifications, showing that the asymmetric quadratic preference class is a valid alternative with favorable properties, as demonstrated through examples and applications. For both utility specifications, we derive travel time reliability ratios and present a straightforward computation method using the concepts of τ -deviation and τ -variance. Moreover, we test both specifications using departure time choice data, finding that the quadratic loss specification more accurately represents actual departure time choices. Finally, using Montreal travel time data for two alternative routes, we fit a mixture of gamma distributions and compare the behavior of the optimal departure time choices and travel time reliability ratio curves induced by the different utility specifications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEURO Journal on Transportation and LogisticsSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207