联合上界覆盖与路径选择效用：基于两个城市代理任务的实证评估
Joint upper-bound coverage and route-choice utility: an empirical evaluation on two urban proxy tasks
- East China Jiaotong University（华东交通大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
AI总结：
本研究通过北京和成都的离线代理任务，评估联合上界覆盖对路径选择效用的影响，发现覆盖率提升但迟到率与出行时间增加，表明联合覆盖不能替代下游路径效用。
AI中文摘要：
更准确的交通预测或更高的不确定性覆盖是否能够改善路径决策，目前尚不清楚。我们通过一个冻结协议来评估这一问题，该协议将速度误差、联合候选路径上界覆盖、路径选择以及实际损失分离开来。利用来自北京和成都的处理后道路速度数据，我们构建了离线代理任务，每个城市包含150个起讫点对、三条候选路径和14个测试日。我们在最小界路径选择下，将原始的90分位路径时间界与联合校准的上界进行比较。联合覆盖率在北京M1中从83.19%提升至92.26%，在成都M1中从75.14%提升至88.33%，在成都M2中从74.01%提升至90.64%。然而，C2分别使迟到率增加了0.1633、0.7848和0.9200个百分点，平均出行时间分别增加了0.588、3.082和4.418秒。在另一项成都预测器对比中，速度平均绝对误差降低14.91%伴随着C0下迟到率降低1.4571个百分点。因此，在这些冻结任务中，联合覆盖率并不能作为下游路径效用的替代指标；离线结果并未建立在线或因果层面的收益。
英文摘要：
Whether more accurate traffic forecasts or higher uncertainty coverage improve route decisions is unclear. We evaluate this question with a frozen protocol that separates speed error, joint candidate path upper bound coverage, route selection, and realized loss. Using processed road speed data from Beijing and Chengdu, we construct offline proxy tasks with 150 origin destination pairs, three candidate paths, and 14 test days per city. We compare raw 90th percentile path time bounds with jointly calibrated upper bounds under minimum bound route choice. Joint coverage rises from 83.19% to 92.26% in Beijing M1, from 75.14% to 88.33% in Chengdu M1, and from 74.01% to 90.64% in Chengdu M2. Yet C2 increases lateness by 0.1633, 0.7848, and 0.9200 percentage points, respectively, and mean travel time by 0.588, 3.082, and 4.418 seconds. In a separate Chengdu predictor comparison, a 14.91% reduction in speed mean absolute error accompanies a 1.4571 percentage point reduction in lateness under C0. Joint coverage is therefore not a surrogate for downstream route utility in these frozen tasks the offline results do not establish online or causal benefits.
