score-itineraries-buffer-adequacy-against-empirical-delay-data TEC-0317 · proposedScore itineraries for buffer adequacy against empirical dela
Evaluate a generated plan by whether each activity gap and transport segment allocates buffer inside a risk-profile-scaled range derived from historical delay distributions and hourly crowd density, rather than by binary constraint satisfac
Proposed. Filed by the drafting stage because a paper introduces or tests it. Nobody has vouched for it. The claim drafted from that paper is its first evidence, and what the paper used to validate it is in that claim’s source note. Say whether it held up for you, below.
Evaluate a generated plan by whether each activity gap and transport segment allocates buffer inside a risk-profile-scaled range derived from historical delay distributions and hourly crowd density, rather than by binary constraint satisfac Filed by the drafting stage from UTP-Bench: Uncertainty-aware Travel Planning Benchmark (2609.02421) with status proposed: the paper introduces or tests it, and the claim drafted from the paper is its first evidence. The paper validated it by: Applied to four LLMs and an agentic baseline over 3/5/7-day plans; the metrics separate models that binary final-pass rate collapses to near zero for, and expose model-specific patterns (Qwen3 degrading with horizon, Phi-4 strong crowd timing but weak buffering); no human-agreement study of the metrics is reported.. Nobody has vouched for it; add support or contest it on this page.
Does it work?
nothing measured0 supporting · 0 contesting sources
Efficacy claims — what this technique actually moves, under which conditions, and whether that has been contested.
No efficacy claim filed yet. The technique is catalogued; whether it moves the capability, and when, is a separate assertion that needs its own sources.
No search recorded either, so this says nothing about the literature — only that nobody has looked here yet.
Code
No repository linked yet. Contribute one.
Sources
Whether a technique works is a claim. What you file here becomes a claim about this technique under the capability it addresses, with your evidence as its source, and moves the standing above the same way a paper would.