The DOI matches its DataCite record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Public Transit Arrival Prediction: a Seq2Seq RNN Approach
Open accessAbstract
Arrival/Travel times for public transit exhibit variability on account of factors like seasonality, dwell times at bus stops, traffic signals, travel demand fluctuation etc. The developing world in particular is plagued by additional factors like lack of lane discipline, excess vehicles, diverse modes of transport and so on. This renders the bus arrival time prediction (BATP) to be a challenging problem especially in the developing world. A novel data-driven model based on recurrent neural networks (RNNs) is proposed for BATP (in real-time) in the current work. The model intelligently incorporates both spatial and temporal correlations in a unique (non-linear) fashion distinct from existing approaches. In particular, we propose a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) based Encoder-Decoder(ED) OR Seq2Seq RNN model (originally introduced for language translation) for BATP. The geometry of the dynamic real time BATP problem enables a nice fit with the Encoder-Decoder based RNN structure. We feed relevant additional synchronized inputs (from previous trips) at each step of the decoder (a feature classically unexplored in machine translation applications). Further motivated from accurately modelling congestion influences on travel time prediction, we additionally propose to use a bidirectional layer at the decoder (something unexplored in other time-series based ED application contexts). The effectiveness of the proposed algorithms is demonstrated on real field data collected from challenging traffic conditions. Our experiments indicate that the proposed method outperforms diverse existing state-of-art data-driven approaches proposed for the same problem.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
The paper proposes a Seq2Seq/encoder-decoder GRU model for real-time bus arrival time prediction that maps the spatial dimension of a route to the sequential ED structure and adds a bidirectional decoder to capture downstream congestion effects. On Route 399 in Delhi, the bidirectional variant EDB outperformed four baselines and the unidirectional variant across short and multi-step sub-route predictions.
Key findings
- On Route 399 (34 uniform 800 m sections), EDB achieved best-case MAPE improvements up to 10.21%, 12.54%, 4.03%, 7.78%, and 8.93% over LNKF, SVKF, DpAR, CLSTM, and EDU; MAE improvements were up to 29.87s, 53.88s, 30.81s, 34.11s, and 19.81s respectively.
- For multi-step prediction, EDB reduced MAPE by up to 12.49%, 12.92%, 5.71%, 3.71%, and 8.61% over LNKF, SVKF, DpAR, CLSTM, and EDU at 5-step ahead; at 15-step ahead, reductions were up to 8.00%, 7.93%, 3.94%, 2.61%, and 6.59%.
- Across 21 (i,j) sub-route pairs, EDB outperformed CLSTM on 15 pairs (similar on 5, poorer on 1) and DpAR on 17 pairs (similar on 3, poorer on 1) by MAPE; it outperformed LNKF, SVKF, and EDU on all pairs.
- Day-level two-step tests: EDB’s MAE improvements over CLSTM and DpAR were statistically significant on 4 days and similar on the remaining two; EDB was statistically better than EDU, LNKF, and SVKF on all days.
Methods
- Data: one Delhi bus route (Route 399), uniformly segmented into 800 m sections (34 total); AVL/GPS travel times from Sep–Oct 2019; Mon–Sat used, Sunday excluded; first 7 weeks training, 8th week testing.
- Model: GRU-based encoder-decoder Seq2Seq. Encoder receives current bus’s traversed section travel times; decoder receives space-synchronized previous-bus and previous-week same-weekday travel/entry times; EDB adds a bidirectional decoder layer. Models were trained across every 5 consecutive sections (6 models starting at section 3).
- Evaluation: MAE and MAPE against LNKF, SVKF, DpAR, and CLSTM; Z-test at 0.1 significance for error differences; BPTT/Adam, batch size 32, early stopping for DpAR, EDU, and EDB.
Limitations
- Stated: the unified model across all positions performed poorly due to one-hot encoding of section number and variable encoder/decoder lengths, so models were built per 5-section block; training-data preparation for the closest previous bus is O(N_day * N_tr^2 * N_s^2) and assumes no bus bunching for simplicity.
- Stated: evaluation is on one route from Delhi with uniform 800 m segmenting; authors note non-uniform segmenting is possible but not tested, and future work includes additional inputs like speed/flow and transformer variants.
- Evident: results are from a single city/route and two months of data, with Sunday excluded, so generalizability to other routes, cities, and conditions is not demonstrated; some baselines (BusTr, TD) were not benchmarked due to incompatible inputs or poor short/mid-route performance.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 2 Not valid · 19 Not checked · 70 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EDB in particular, as in the 2-step case performs the best.”
§ Encoder-Decoder RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction > C. Multi-Step Prediction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly in terms of MAE, EDB performs the best with an advantage up to 29.87s, 53.88s, 30.81s, 34.11s and 19.81s over LNKF, SVKF, DpAR, CLSTM and EDU approaches respectively.”
§ Encoder-Decoder RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction > Assessing significance of Error differences statistically:
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Please observe in these figures how the MAE generally increases with the length of the subroute (i.e.(ji)) inline with the intuition that error increases with prediction horizon.”
§ Encoder-Decoder RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction > C. Multi-Step Prediction
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 4 illustrates that EDB, our bidirectional proposed variant outperforms EDU and most of the state-of-art baselines consistently at a 2-step level.”
§ Encoder-Decoder RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction > ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EDB performs better (statistically) on all days compared to EDU, LNKF, and SVKF.”
§ Encoder-Decoder RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction > Assessing significance of Error differences statistically:
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
47 more claims
Create a free account to see all 91 claims and every source verdict.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Y. Bin, Y. Zhinzhen, and Y. Baozhen, "Bus arrival time prediction using support vector machines," Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 10(4), pp. 151-158, 2007.
- B. A. Kumar, V. Kumar, L. Vanajakshi, and S. Subramanian, "Perfor- mance comparison of data driven and less data demanding techniques for bus travel time prediction," European Transport, vol. 65(9), 2017.
- R. Wen, K. Torkkola, B. Narayanaswamy, and D. Madeka, "A multi- horizon quantile recurrent forecaster," in The 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Time Series Workshop, 2017.
- I. Sutskever, O. Vinyals, and Q. V. Le, "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks," in Proceedings of the 27th International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems -Volume 2, 2014, p. 3104-3112.
- S. V. Kumar and L. Vanajakshi, "Pattern identification based bus arrival time prediction," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers- Transport, vol. 167(3), pp. 194-203, 2012.
- J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio, "Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling," in NIPS 2014 Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop, 2014.
- Z. Che, S. Purushotham, K. Cho, D. Sontag, and Y. Liu, "Recurrent neural networks for multivariate time series with missing values," Scientific Reports, vol. 8, Jun 2016.
Cited by
Kaya, O., & Kalay, M. U. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3609530 · Cited by 10
Seq2Seq RNNs for Bus Arrival Time Prediction
Bhutani, N., Pachal, S., & Achar, A. (2025) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-0026-7_22
Self-citationArtificial Intelligent Public Bus Arrivals for Smart Cities: A Survey
Kim, S.-K., & Chen, Y. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3859870
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhutani, N., Pachal, S., & Achar, A.
- Affiliations
- Tata Consultancy Services (India) (IN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2210.01655
- OpenAlex
- W4302306608
- Semantic Scholar
- 7ae1878bcee65aa82efae558e0cfe37fdcbc9f39
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Traffic Prediction and Management Techniques
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Urban Transport Systems Analysis
- Keywords
- bus arrival time prediction, public transport, gated recurrent unit, encoder-decoder architecture, real-time prediction, traffic congestion, spatio-temporal correlation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Transit Arrival Prediction: a Seq2Seq RNN Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2210.01655
- The paper
- Bhutani, N., Pachal, S., & Achar, A. (2022). Public Transit Arrival Prediction: a Seq2Seq RNN Approach. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.01655
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
