3 ms·
It would also be interesting to see how the nature of the cause can explain the one statistical surprise that remains: PV46 is no outlier at all in figure 3, "f
by usrusr 10y ago
It would also be interesting to see how the nature of the cause can explain the one statistical surprise that remains: PV46 is no outlier at all in figure 3, "frequency by train ID". According to the preliminary explanation, PV46 should either be so massively overrepresented there that the bughunt would be over before it really started (it is always close to itself), or it should only be affected by the estimated 5% of outages not related to PV46 which it clearly isn't.
- nandhp 10y agoExcept that figure shows the frequency with which PV46 experienced an interruption, not the frequency with which it was near an interruption. As stated in the article, "We could not inspect the detailed train logs that day because SMRT needed more time to extract the data", implying that there was no position information for trains that were not actively experiencing a disruption. Arguably, based on the preliminary explanation, it seems like PV46 might be over-represented (it had 4 interruptions) -- after all, it never travels in the opposite direction to itself.