Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 42 references

SPTTE: A Spatiotemporal Probabilistic Framework for Travel Time Estimation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SPTTE treats many trips' travel times as one time-evolving joint Gaussian distribution and reports over 10% relative improvement over six published baselines on two real-world GPS datasets.

desk verdict Solid extension of ProbETA with two genuinely new ideas, but the claimed multi-trip joint modeling is mathematically false as written; needs major revision before it can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18484 v1 pith:CQT6RTK6 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.LG

Chen Xu , Qiang Wang , Lijun Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords traveltimeestimationprobabilisticregressionGaussianprocessparameterizationspatiotemporalstochasticuncertaintyquantificationcoveragefrequencyroadnetworksmoothing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SPTTE aims to show that travel time estimation improves when the model stops treating trips independently and instead estimates one joint probability distribution over many trips at once, with the distribution itself allowed to change from one time window to the next. The authors recast the problem as regression of a spatiotemporal stochastic process whose realizations are fragmented by sparse and uneven trip data, and drive the temporal changes through a gated-recurrent network fed by how often each road link appears in recent trips. On ride-hailing datasets from two cities, the model reports relative gains above 10% against six deterministic and probabilistic baselines, with the biggest advantages appearing when the training data are made sparser in time or unevenly distributed in space. If right, this means correlations and uncertainty can be estimated jointly across overlapping trips without a separate model for each time of day.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the RNN-based temporal Gaussian process parameterization, coupled with the affine mapping from link Gaussians to trip Gaussians. For each link and each branch $s \in \{\mu, L, V, D\}$, the GRU over the coverage-frequency covariate $F_{i-\eta:i-1}$ plus a static embedding yields a hidden representation $H_i^s$; after heterogeneity smoothing through a prior-based HGCN, the branches produce mean $\mu_i$, scale $V_i$, low-rank factor $L_i$, and diagonal residual $D_i$, combined as $\Sigma_i = V_i^{1/2}L_iL_i^\top V_i^{1/2} + D_i$. Trip indicator matrices $\hat A$ and $\hat B$ map these link-level parameters into the joint Gaussian of Eq. (21), and the negative log-likelihood is evaluated blockwise using the Woodbury matrix identity and the matrix determinant lemma. Two orthogonality losses keep the mean and covariance parameterizations independent and the low-rank factor well behaved. This is the mechanism that lets temporally sparse observations be regularized by a recurrent process and spatially sparse links be regularized by neighboring links.

What would settle it

Permute the 20-minute time-slot labels of the coverage-frequency sequences during training and testing while holding all spatial inputs fixed; if MAPE and CRPS on the Chengdu or Harbin test sets do not get worse, the temporal evolution mechanism is not what is driving the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a batch of query trips can be described by a single time-indexed joint Gaussian distribution, $\tau \sim \mathcal{N}(\hat A\mu,\ \hat B(I_Q \otimes \Sigma)\hat B^\top)$, assembled from link-level parameters by two sparse indicator matrices. Link-level means and covariances are generated by a temporal Gaussian process parameterization: a GRU reads recent coverage frequency, a static embedding adds global link identity, and four output branches provide the mean, the scale, the low-rank correlation factor, and the diagonal residual. A prior-based heterogeneous graph convolution smooths representations from poorly covered links using better-covered neighbors before the affine aggregation builds the multi-trip distribution. On the Chengdu and Harbin datasets the model outperforms six published baselines by more than 10% in relative terms, keeps errors more stable across time of day, and learns link-correlation patterns that strengthen during peak hours and weaken off peak.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a link's travel-time distribution across the day is fully captured by how often trips pass over that link, so the frequency signal alone can drive the temporal model; if travel times change for reasons that do not change trip counts, this premise fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained model can output a coherent joint distribution for any set of query trips, including trips that share road links, instead of treating trips independently or retraining for each time window.
  • Because link representations evolve continuously, query times that fall between discrete slots can be served by interpolation, giving travel-time distributions at arbitrary departure times.
  • Temporal regularization transfers statistical strength from high-coverage periods such as peak hours to low-coverage periods such as nighttime, which is why the reported errors are more stable across the day.
  • Heterogeneity smoothing should allow reasonable predictions for links with no historical trips, as long as their prior features and network neighbors are known.
  • The low-rank-plus-diagonal covariance and blockwise likelihood computation keep the joint Gaussian tractable in batches, so the method is not limited to tiny route sets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if coverage frequency really is a sufficient temporal signal, the same GRU-plus-Gaussian parameterization could be carried over to other sparse spatiotemporal processes where observations come in fragments, such as transit on-time performance or ride-hailing demand.
  • Editorial inference: because the covariance between overlapping trips is computed explicitly rather than assumed away, the framework is a natural fit for fleet-level planning problems that need joint arrival-time distributions across many vehicles.
  • Editorial inference: the interpolation experiments test only linear smoothness of the learned representations; a stricter check of the temporal process would compare extrapolation to an unseen future slot against slot-static baselines with the same architecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SPTTE, a probabilistic travel time estimation framework. It formulates multi-trip travel time estimation as a spatiotemporal stochastic process regression problem, parameterizes link-level Gaussian distributions via an RNN driven by trip coverage frequency, applies prior-based heterogeneous graph smoothing to link representations, and constructs a joint Gaussian distribution for a batch of query trips. The authors report large relative improvements over deterministic and probabilistic baselines on Chengdu and Harbin datasets, with ablations and visualizations supporting the temporal and spatial behavior of the learned representations.

Significance. If the construction in Eq. (21) were correct, the paper would offer a meaningful step beyond per-trip probabilistic TTE: a temporal parameterization of link-level means and covariances, a heterogeneity-aware smoothing mechanism for uneven coverage, and a joint predictive distribution. Strengths include an available code and data link, experiments on two real-world datasets, ablation studies, an interpretability analysis, and a complexity discussion. However, the central claimed contribution—modeling inter-trip correlations—is mathematically contradicted by the block-diagonal construction in Eq. (21), and the headline improvement figure is not measured against the strongest baseline. These issues undermine the paper's main claims as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-D, Eq. (21)] The covariance in Eq. (21) is B̂(I_Q ⊗ Σ)B̂^T with B̂ = blkdiag({Â_q}) as defined in Section IV-D. Because B̂ is block diagonal, the off-diagonal blocks of the resulting covariance are exactly zero: for any two distinct trips q and q′, Cov(τ_q, τ_q′) = Â_q Σ Â_{q′}^T = 0. Thus the model as written only correlates augmented subsamples within the same trip; different trips are independent. This directly contradicts the stated objective in the abstract, Section II-B, and Section III-C of capturing correlations between multiple trips. The joint distribution in Eq. (21) is a product of independent per-trip distributions, so the central methodological contribution is not realized. To model inter-trip correlations, B̂ would need to stack all augmented trip indicators into a single matrix rather than using blkdiag, and the experiments and claims would need to be redone accordingly.
  2. [Section IV-B Eq. (3) vs. Algorithm 1 line 10] There is an internal inconsistency in the definition of the link covariance. Eq. (3) defines Σ = V^{1/2} L L^T V^{1/2} + D, while Algorithm 1 line 10 constructs Σ = B̂(I_b ⊗ (V^{-1/2} L L^T V^{-1/2} + D)) B̂^T. These two forms are not equivalent and imply different roles for the scale matrix V. Since the algorithm is the more reproducible specification and the code was not inspected, this ambiguity prevents verification of the covariance parameterization and of the orthogonality constraint in Eq. (24).
  3. [Section V-A, Table II and abstract] The abstract claims SPTTE outperforms state-of-the-art methods by over 10.13%, and the text after Table II says this is "against the strongest baseline." The arithmetic does not support that statement. Against ProbETA, the strongest baseline in Table II, SPTTE improves Chengdu MAPE by only (12.54−12.25)/12.54 = 2.31% and Harbin MAPE by only (13.17−12.96)/13.17 = 1.59%; the text itself later reports "a relative reduction of 2.31%" for Chengdu. The "Improvement" row values in Table II appear to be computed against weaker baselines such as MulT-TTE or GMDNet, depending on the metric, and the basis of the 10.13% figure is not defined. The headline performance claim should be restated with the appropriate baseline and correct percentages.
  4. [Section IV-B, Eq. (7)] The temporal dynamics of the link-level distributions are driven entirely by the coverage frequency covariate F_{i,l} in Eq. (7), which is the only temporal input to the GRU. The paper does not independently validate that coverage frequency is sufficient to explain the evolution of both means and covariances; the interpolation experiments in Section V-D test the linear smoothness of the learned representations, not the informativeness of F. Without such validation (e.g., an ablation that replaces F with other temporal features or perturbs F), the temporal parameterization claim remains an unsupported modeling assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (25)] The summation in the final loss is written as s ∈ {V, C, L}; the branch C is not defined anywhere, and it should likely be {V, D, L} to match Eq. (23) and the four branches introduced in Eq. (8).
  2. [Section IV-B / title] The phrase "temporal Gaussian process parameterization" is used even though the construction in Eqs. (5)–(12) is an RNN parameterization of a conditional Gaussian, not a Gaussian process prior or marginal likelihood. Renaming this component would avoid overclaiming and better match the actual methodology.
  3. [Table II] The "Improvement" row is not labeled with its computation method; it should state explicitly which baseline or set of baselines the percentage improvement is measured against, and it should use the strongest baseline for any "state-of-the-art" claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative results are non-circular (NLL-trained, held-out benchmarks), but the claimed inter-trip correlation is void by construction: B̂ = blkdiag({Âq}) in Eq. (21) forces zero covariance between distinct trips, so the 'joint multi-trip distribution' factorizes and the correlation claim reduces to the independence the paper criticizes.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-D, Eq. (21) (B̂ = blkdiag({Âq})); abstract and Section I claims]
    "The joint distribution of multi-trip travel times τi is derived as τ ∼ N(µ, B̂(IQ ⊗ Σ)B̂⊤), (21) ... B̂ = blkdiag({Âq}) is used to construct the correlation of subsamples originating from the same trip. [Abstract: 'account for correlations between multiple trips']"

    Because B̂ = blkdiag({Âq}), the (q,q′) block of B̂(I_Q⊗Σ)B̂^T equals Â_q Σ Â_{q′}^T, zero for q ≠ q′. So Cov(τ_q, τ_{q′}) = 0 and Eq. (21) factorizes into independent per-trip Gaussians ∏_q N(Â_q μ, Â_q Σ Â_q^T). The abstract and Section I motivate the joint formulation by 'the potential correlation for trips with overlapping links'; that capability is excluded by the block-diagonal indicator matrix defining the joint distribution. The inter-trip correlation claim thus reduces to the construction (covariance forced to zero), and the joint-distribution novelty coincides, at the inter-trip level, with the independence assumption the paper criticizes in baselines. Internal inconsistency: V^{1/2}LL^T V^{1/2}+D (Eq. 3) vs V^{-1/2}LL^T V^{-1/2}+D (Alg. 1).

full rationale

The core quantitative derivation of SPTTE is not circular. Link-level Gaussian parameters are produced from features (Eqs. 2-12, 20), trips are aggregated through indicator matrices (Eq. 21), and parameters are fitted by maximizing the NLL (Eqs. 22-25) on observed trip travel times; the headline results (Table II) are computed on held-out test sets with independent metrics (RMSE, MAE, MAPE, CRPS). No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and the only reuse of the authors' prior work — the kaug subsampling augmentation from ProbETA [28] in Section IV-D — is a component transplant rather than a load-bearing justification: the temporal GP parameterization and likelihood training are new, and ProbETA itself is benchmarked as an external baseline here. The coverage-frequency covariate (Eq. 7) is a stated modeling assumption; its sufficiency is a validation risk (Section V-D interpolates representations, not F itself), not circularity. The flagged step is construction-level: with B̂ = blkdiag({Âq}), Eq. (21) forces inter-trip covariance to zero, so the paper's central qualitative claim of modeling correlations between multiple trips is predetermined (negated) by the definition of the joint distribution. This partially voids a central claimed capability without tainting the empirical improvements, hence a moderate score rather than 0-2. Minor alarm: Eq. (3) and Algorithm 1 line 10 disagree on V^{1/2} vs V^{-1/2}.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model does not introduce new physical entities. The main assumptions are the Gaussianity of travel times, the existence of a latent temporal generator, and the sufficiency of coverage frequency as a temporal covariate. The free parameters are hyperparameters and a learned sensitivity factor, not physically meaningful constants.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha, beta loss weights = 0.02 each
    Tuned via grid search on the validation set (Section V-E). The paper states alpha is more sensitive than beta. These weights affect the final model performance.
  • k_f sensitivity factor = 19 (learned)
    Learnable sensitivity factor in the heterogeneous weight function Eq. (16). The visualization in Fig. 5 uses k_f = 19, a fitted value.
  • Low-rank dimension r_L = 64 (rh=32 + re=32)
    The latent dimension of L in Eq. (10) is set to the concatenated hidden and embedding dimension. This is a model capacity choice that affects expressiveness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trip travel times follow a joint Gaussian distribution
    Eq. (1) assumes tau_q ~ N(mu_q, Sigma_q). This is a common but strong assumption for travel times, which can be skewed or multimodal.
  • domain assumption A latent generative function H(.) exists
    Eq. (5) postulates a function H that maps past travel time distributions to future ones. The paper does not prove existence or consistency; it parametrizes H with a GRU.
  • ad hoc to paper Coverage frequency F is a sufficient covariate for temporal variability
    Section IV-B uses F_i,l as the sole temporal input to the GRU. The paper assumes this count time series reflects the evolution of travel time means and covariances, a strong modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Links with similar prior characteristics exhibit similar posterior features
    Section IV-C cites a traffic contagion reference [40] to justify prior similarity smoothing. This is plausible but not proven for the specific prior features used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPTTE: A Spatiotemporal Probabilistic Framework for Travel Time Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQT6RTK6

@misc{pith2026241118484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPTTE: A Spatiotemporal Probabilistic Framework for Travel Time Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQT6RTK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18484}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate travel time estimation is essential for navigation and itinerary planning. While existing research employs probabilistic modeling to assess travel time uncertainty and account for correlations between multiple trips, modeling the temporal variability of multi-trip travel time distributions remains a significant challenge. Capturing the evolution of joint distributions requires large, well-organized datasets; however, real-world trip data are often temporally sparse and spatially unevenly distributed. To address this issue, we propose SPTTE, a spatiotemporal probabilistic framework that models the evolving joint distribution of multi-trip travel times by formulating the estimation task as a spatiotemporal stochastic process regression problem with fragmented observations. SPTTE incorporates an RNN-based temporal Gaussian process parameterization to regularize sparse observations and capture temporal dependencies. Additionally, it employs a prior-based heterogeneity smoothing strategy to correct unreliable learning caused by unevenly distributed trips, effectively modeling temporal variability under sparse and uneven data distributions. Evaluations on real-world datasets demonstrate that SPTTE outperforms state-of-the-art deterministic and probabilistic methods by over 10.13%. Ablation studies and visualizations further confirm the effectiveness of the model components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fragmented realization of the trip spatiotemporal stochastic process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of SPTTE. and reducing the accuracy of both travel time predictions and uncertainty quantifications. In prior work [28], we developed a joint probability model for multi-trip scenarios, explicitly addressing correlations among trips. However, this approach encounters difficulties in handling time-varying dynamics and dealing with sparse, uneven coverage of trip data. Effectively modeling the tem… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Process of Heterogeneity Smoothing. Introduce prior intervention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimation error by time period in a day. (a). MAPE in Chengdu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coverage frequency distribution and heterogeneous weight function. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of learned link correlation. (a). Link correlation during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Analysis of loss function and hyperparameter. (a). Convergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of learned temporal evolution. (a). Temporal evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Efficiency of eta prediction,

    C. Yan, J. Johndrow, D. Woodard, and Y . Sun, “Efficiency of eta prediction,” SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 227–253, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Bayesian inference for link travel time correlation of a bus route

    X. Chen, Z. Cheng, and L. Sun, “Bayesian inference for link travel time correlation of a bus route,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09485 , 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Travel time estimation of a path using sparse trajectories,

    Y . Wang, Y . Zheng, and Y . Xue, “Travel time estimation of a path using sparse trajectories,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , 2014, pp. 25–34

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    A simple baseline for travel time estimation using large-scale trip data,

    H. Wang, X. Tang, Y .-H. Kuo, D. Kifer, and Z. Li, “A simple baseline for travel time estimation using large-scale trip data,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Multi-task representation learning for travel time estimation,

    Y . Li, K. Fu, Z. Wang, C. Shahabi, J. Ye, and Y . Liu, “Multi-task representation learning for travel time estimation,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2018, pp. 1695–1704

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Effective travel time estimation: When historical trajectories over road networks matter,

    H. Yuan, G. Li, Z. Bao, and L. Feng, “Effective travel time estimation: When historical trajectories over road networks matter,” in Proceedings of the 2020 acm sigmod international conference on management of data, 2020, pp. 2135–2149

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Origin-destination travel time oracle for map-based services,

    Y . Lin, H. Wan, J. Hu, S. Guo, B. Yang, Y . Lin, and C. S. Jensen, “Origin-destination travel time oracle for map-based services,” Proceed- ings of the ACM on Management of Data , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–27, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A unified neural network approach for estimating travel time and distance for a taxi trip,

    I. Jindal, X. Chen, M. Nokleby, J. Ye et al., “A unified neural network approach for estimating travel time and distance for a taxi trip,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04350, 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Multi-task weakly supervised learning for origin-destination travel time estimation,

    H. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Fan, J. Chen, L. Zhang, R. Shibasaki, and X. Song, “Multi-task weakly supervised learning for origin-destination travel time estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Multi-semantic path representation learning for travel time estimation,

    L. Han, B. Du, J. Lin, L. Sun, X. Li, and Y . Peng, “Multi-semantic path representation learning for travel time estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 13 108–13 117, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Multi-faceted route representation learning for travel time estimation,

    T. Liao, L. Han, Y . Xu, T. Zhu, L. Sun, and B. Du, “Multi-faceted route representation learning for travel time estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    When will you arrive? estimating travel time based on deep neural networks,

    D. Wang, J. Zhang, W. Cao, J. Li, and Y . Zheng, “When will you arrive? estimating travel time based on deep neural networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Nei-tte: Intelligent traffic time estimation based on fine-grained time derivation of road segments for smart city,

    J. Qiu, L. Du, D. Zhang, S. Su, and Z. Tian, “Nei-tte: Intelligent traffic time estimation based on fine-grained time derivation of road segments for smart city,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2659–2666, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Learning to estimate the travel time,

    Z. Wang, K. Fu, and J. Ye, “Learning to estimate the travel time,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2018, pp. 858–866

    2018

  7. [15]

    Heteta: Heterogeneous information network embedding for estimating time of arrival,

    H. Hong, Y . Lin, X. Yang, Z. Li, K. Fu, Z. Wang, X. Qie, and J. Ye, “Heteta: Heterogeneous information network embedding for estimating time of arrival,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2020, pp. 2444– 2454. 14

    2020

  8. [16]

    Constgat: Contextual spatial-temporal graph attention network for travel time estimation at baidu maps,

    X. Fang, J. Huang, F. Wang, L. Zeng, H. Liang, and H. Wang, “Constgat: Contextual spatial-temporal graph attention network for travel time estimation at baidu maps,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 2020, pp....

    2020

  9. [17]

    Co- driver eta: Combine driver information in estimated time of arrival by driving style learning auxiliary task,

    Y . Sun, K. Fu, Z. Wang, D. Zhou, K. Wu, J. Ye, and C. Zhang, “Co- driver eta: Combine driver information in estimated time of arrival by driving style learning auxiliary task,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4037–4048, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Cateta: A categorical approximate approach for estimating time of arrival,

    Y . Ye, Y . Zhu, C. Markos, and J. James, “Cateta: A categorical approximate approach for estimating time of arrival,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 24 389–24 400, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Graphtte: Travel time estimation based on attention-spatiotemporal graphs,

    Q. Wang, C. Xu, W. Zhang, and J. Li, “Graphtte: Travel time estimation based on attention-spatiotemporal graphs,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 28, pp. 239–243, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Eta prediction with graph neural networks in google maps,

    A. Derrow-Pinion, J. She, D. Wong, O. Lange, T. Hester, L. Perez, M. Nunkesser, S. Lee, X. Guo, B. Wiltshire et al., “Eta prediction with graph neural networks in google maps,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management , 2021...

    2021

  13. [21]

    When will we arrive? a novel multi-task spatio-temporal attention network based on individual preference for estimating travel time,

    G. Zou, Z. Lai, C. Ma, M. Tu, J. Fan, and Y . Li, “When will we arrive? a novel multi-task spatio-temporal attention network based on individual preference for estimating travel time,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    In- terpreting trajectories from multiple views: A hierarchical self-attention network for estimating the time of arrival,

    Z. Chen, X. Xiao, Y .-J. Gong, J. Fang, N. Ma, H. Chai, and Z. Cao, “In- terpreting trajectories from multiple views: A hierarchical self-attention network for estimating the time of arrival,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Fine-grained trajectory-based travel time estimation for multi-city scenarios based on deep meta-learning,

    C. Wang, F. Zhao, H. Zhang, H. Luo, Y . Qin, and Y . Fang, “Fine-grained trajectory-based travel time estimation for multi-city scenarios based on deep meta-learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 15 716–15 728, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ssml: Self-supervised meta-learner for en route travel time estimation at baidu maps,

    X. Fang, J. Huang, F. Wang, L. Liu, Y . Sun, and H. Wang, “Ssml: Self-supervised meta-learner for en route travel time estimation at baidu maps,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 2021, pp. 2840–2848

    2021

  17. [25]

    Learning travel time distribu- tions with deep generative model,

    X. Li, G. Cong, A. Sun, and Y . Cheng, “Learning travel time distribu- tions with deep generative model,” in The World Wide Web Conference, 2019, pp. 1017–1027

    2019

  18. [26]

    Citywide estimation of travel time distributions with bayesian deep graph learning,

    J. James, “Citywide estimation of travel time distributions with bayesian deep graph learning,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 2366–2378, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Travel time distribution estimation by learning representations over temporal attributed graphs,

    W. Zhou, X. Xiao, Y .-J. Gong, J. Chen, J. Fang, N. Tan, N. Ma, Q. Li, C. Hua, S.-W. Jeon et al. , “Travel time distribution estimation by learning representations over temporal attributed graphs,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Link representation learning for proba- bilistic travel time estimation,

    C. Xu, Q. Wang, and L. Sun, “Link representation learning for proba- bilistic travel time estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05895 , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Estimating the covari- ance of fragmented and other related types of functional data,

    A. Delaigle, P. Hall, W. Huang, and A. Kneip, “Estimating the covari- ance of fragmented and other related types of functional data,”Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 116, no. 535, pp. 1383–1401, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Mean and covariance estimation for functional snippets,

    Z. Lin and J.-L. Wang, “Mean and covariance estimation for functional snippets,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 117, no. 537, pp. 348–360, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Gmdnet: A graph-based mixture density network for estimating packages’ multimodal travel time distribution,

    X. Mao, H. Wan, H. Wen, F. Wu, J. Zheng, Y . Qiang, S. Guo, L. Wu, H. Hu, and Y . Lin, “Gmdnet: A graph-based mixture density network for estimating packages’ multimodal travel time distribution,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 4...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Uncertainty-aware probabilistic travel time prediction for on-demand ride-hailing at didi,

    H. Liu, W. Jiang, S. Liu, and X. Chen, “Uncertainty-aware probabilistic travel time prediction for on-demand ride-hailing at didi,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2023, pp. 4516–4526

    2023

  25. [33]

    Caviar: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles,

    R. F. Engle and S. Manganelli, “Caviar: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles,” Journal of business & economic statistics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 367–381, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Probability and uncertainty in economic modeling,

    I. Gilboa, A. W. Postlewaite, and D. Schmeidler, “Probability and uncertainty in economic modeling,” Journal of economic perspectives , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 173–188, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with es- timates of the variance of united kingdom inflation,

    R. F. Engle, “Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with es- timates of the variance of united kingdom inflation,” Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society , pp. 987–1007, 1982

    1982

  28. [36]

    Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic- ity,

    T. Bollerslev, “Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic- ity,” Journal of econometrics , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 307–327, 1986

    1986

  29. [37]

    Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks,

    D. Salinas, V . Flunkert, J. Gasthaus, and T. Januschowski, “Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks,” Inter- national journal of forecasting , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1181–1191, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    High-dimensional multivariate forecasting with low-rank gaussian cop- ula processes,

    D. Salinas, M. Bohlke-Schneider, L. Callot, R. Medico, and J. Gasthaus, “High-dimensional multivariate forecasting with low-rank gaussian cop- ula processes,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps,

    M. Haklay and P. Weber, “Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps,” IEEE Pervasive computing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 12–18, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    A simple contagion process describes spreading of traffic jams in urban networks,

    M. Saberi, H. Hamedmoghadam, M. Ashfaq, S. A. Hosseini, Z. Gu, S. Shafiei, D. J. Nair, V . Dixit, L. Gardner, S. T. Waller et al. , “A simple contagion process describes spreading of traffic jams in urban networks,” Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1616, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Vapnik, The nature of statistical learning theory

    V . Vapnik, The nature of statistical learning theory . Springer science & business media, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Efron, Large-scale inference: empirical Bayes methods for estimation, testing, and prediction

    B. Efron, Large-scale inference: empirical Bayes methods for estimation, testing, and prediction . Cambridge University Press, 2012, vol. 1

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.