<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Systems</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>On Predicting Traveling Times in Scheduled Transportation (Abstract)</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Matthias Weidlich</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Avigdor Gal Avishai Mandelbaum Francois Schnitzler Arik Senderovich Technion - Israel Institute of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Haifa</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="IL">Israel</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Humboldt-Universita ̈t zu Berlin</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Berlin</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>1990</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>6</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <abstract>
        <p>Traveling time prediction Urban mobility impacts urban life to a great extent. People, living in cities, plan their daily schedule around anticipated traffic patterns. Some wake-up early to “beat” rush hour. Others stay at home and work during days when a convention comes to town. To enhance urban mobility, much research was invested in traveling time prediction, see (Wu et al., 2004). That is, given an origin and destination, provide a passenger with an accurate estimation of how long a journey lasts. In particular, the ability to predict traveling time in scheduled transportation, e.g., buses, was shown to be feasible (Chien et al., 2002). In this work, we address the problem of online travel time prediction in the context of a bus journey. That is, a journey may be ongoing in the sense that journey events already indicated the progress of the bus on its route. For such an ongoing journey, we are interested in the current prediction of the traveling time from the current bus stop to some destination via a particular sequence of stops, which is defined by the respective journey pattern.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>To address the problem of online travel time prediction, we
investigate a novel use of methods from Queueing Theory
and Machine Learning in the prediction process. We
propose a prediction engine that, given a scheduled bus journey
(route) and a ‘source/destination’ pair, provides an estimate
for the traveling time, while considering both historical data
and real-time streams of information that are transmitted by
buses. To do so, we model buses as clients that go through
a journey of segments that are interpreted as a network of
Proceedings of the 2 nd International Workshop on Mining Urban
Data, Lille, France, 2015. Copyright c 2015 for this paper by its
authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>AVIGAL@IE.TECHNION.AC.IL AVIM@IE.TECHNION.AC.IL FRANCOIS@EE.TECHNION.AC.IL SARIKS@TX.TECHNION.AC.IL</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>WEIDLIMA@INFORMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE</title>
      <p>queues. We propose a model that uses natural segmentation
of the data according to bus stops and a set of predictors,
some use learning while others are learning-free, to estimate
traveling time.</p>
      <p>The model of journey segments. As the foundation of our
approach, we propose to model each bus trip by using a
segmentation model as follows. A trip between two stops
consists of segments, with each segment being represented
by a ‘start’ stop and an ‘end’ stop, see Figure 1. Given the
first stop of a trip ω1 and the last stop of a trip ωn, the
intermediate stops are known in advance since each bus follows
a predefined journey pattern. Therefore, a trip can be
described by segments that are characterized by a pair of stops
of the form hωi, ωi+1i (Figure 1). This segmented model,
in turn, allows for fine-granular grounding of the prediction
of traveling time T (hω1, . . . , ωni, tω1 ) for a sequence of
stops hω1, . . . , ωni when departing at time tω1 : instead of
considering only journeys that follow the same sequence of
stops hω1, . . . , ωni, all journeys that share some segments
can be used for prediction.
Using information on bus stops, the prediction of the journey
traveling time T (hω1, . . . , ωni, tω1 ) is traced back to the
sum of traveling times per segment. The traveling time per
segment is assumed to be independent of a specific journey
pattern and, thus, also independent of a specific journey:
n−1
T (hω1, . . . , ωni, tω1 ) = X T (hωi, ωi+1i, tωi ),
i=1
where tωn−1 = tω1 + T (hω1, ωn−1i, tω1 ).</p>
      <p>Prediction based on the snapshot principle. A first set
of predictors is grounded in heavy-traffic approximations
in Queueing Theory. It is non-learning, in the sense that it
does not generalize prediction from historical events, but
rather uses recent events to predict future traveling times.
Applied to our context, the main idea is that a bus that passes
through a segment, will experience the same traveling time
as another bus that has just passed through that segment
(not necessarily of the same type, line, etc). Following this
line, we define a single-segment snapshot predictor, called</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Last-Bus-to-Travel-Segment (LBTS).</title>
      <p>To use this predictor to address the online travel time
prediction problem, it needs to be lifted to a network setting. To
this end, we exploit the fact that the snapshot principle holds
for networks of queues, when the routing through this
network is known in advance (Reiman &amp; Simon, 1990). Clearly,
in scheduled transportation, this is the case, so that we
define a multi-segment (network) snapshot predictor, called
Last-Bus-to-Travel-Network. It is derived by summing up
the LBTS predictions for the segments of the respective
journey pattern of the bus for which the prediction is made.
Prediction using Machine Learning methods. A second
set of predictors comes from Machine Learning and is based
on regression trees. They exploit past journey logs to learn
a prediction model, and then use this model to make a
prediction on new instances of the problem, in our case,
traveling times as part of current journeys.</p>
      <p>As a first step, we formalize the traveling times prediction
problem as a regression problem. Features considered for
the regression include the travel time of the last bus that
used that segment (LBTS, as introduced above); the interval
between the time the last bus left the segment and the
estimated time to enter the segment; the day of the week; and
the time of the day. For the resulting regression model,
various generic algorithms are applied to derive an ensemble of
regression trees that is then used to solve the prediction
problem. Specifically, random forests, extremely randomized
forests, AdaBoost, and gradient tree boosting are leveraged.
In a final step, the above methods originating from Queueing
Theory and Machine Learning are combined. That is, we
rely on the boosting algorithms and modify them such that
the first model considered in the boosting is the snapshot
predictor model.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Evaluation</title>
        <p>To demonstrate the value of our approach, we tested the
proposed predictors using bus data that comes from the bus
network in the city of Dublin.1 The data includes location
of buses that is sampled in intervals of 5 to 300 seconds,
depending on the current location of the bus.</p>
        <p>Using this data, we empirically evaluated the prediction
1See also http://www.dublinked.ie/ and http://
www.insight-ict.eu/
accuracy of the presented methods. The main results of our
experiments have been:
• Prediction methods that combine the snapshot
principle and Machine Learning techniques are superior in
quality of prediction to both snapshot predictors and
Machine Learning methods (that do not include the
snapshot predictor).
• The prediction error increases with the number of bus
stops per journey. However, when considering the
relative error, it is stable for all trip lengths, i.e. the
predictors do not deteriorate proportionally to the length
of the journey (in stops).
• Surprisingly, the snapshot predictor does not
deteriorate for longer trips, therefore contradicting the
hypothesis that the snapshot predictor would be more
precise for journeys with higher temporal proximity to
the current journey.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Conclusion</title>
        <p>In this work, we presented a novel approach towards
predicting travel time in urban public transportation. It is grounded
in a partitioning of the travel time into stop-based segments,
and combines the use of Machine Learning and Queueing
Theory predictors to model traveling time in each segment.
Our empirical evaluations confirmed that the combination
of methods indeed improves performance. Moreover, we
observed that the snapshot predictor is, counter-intuitively,
unaffected by the length of a journey. This leads to positive
evidence in favor of applying mixed Queue and Machine</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Learning predictors in similar settings. This work was supported by the EU INSIGHT project (FP7ICT 318225).</title>
      <p>Chien, Steven I-Jy, Ding, Yuqing, and Wei, Chienhung.</p>
      <p>Dynamic bus arrival time prediction with artificial neural
(5):429–438, 2002.</p>
      <p>Reiman, Martin I and Simon, Burton. A network of priority
queues in heavy traffic: One bottleneck station. Queueing
time prediction with support vector regression. Intelligent
Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 5(4):276–
281, 2004.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>