Uncertainty-Aware Delivery Delay Duration Prediction via Multi-Task Deep Learning
Authors: Stefan Faulkner, Reza Zandehshahvar, Vahid Eghbal Akhlaghi, Sebastien Ouellet, Carsten Jordan, Pascal Van Hentenryck
Organizations: NSF Artificial Intelligence Institute for Advances in Optimization, H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA · Kinaxis
Accurate delivery delay prediction is critical for maintaining operational efficiency and customer satisfaction across modern supply chains. Yet the increasing complexity of logistics networks, spanning multimodal transportation, cross-country routing, and pronounced regional variability, makes this prediction task inherently challenging. This paper introduces a multi-task deep learning model for delivery delay duration prediction in the presence of significant imbalanced data, where delayed shipments are rare but operationally consequential. The model embeds high-dimensional shipment features with dedicated embedding layers for tabular data, and then uses a classification-then-regression strategy to predict the delivery delay duration for on-time and delayed shipments. Unlike sequential pipelines, this approach enables end-to-end training, improves the detection of delayed cases, and supports probabilistic forecasting for uncertainty-aware decision making. The proposed approach is evaluated on a large-scale real-world dataset from an industrial partner, comprising more than 10 million historical shipment records across four major source locations with distinct regional characteristics. The proposed model is compared with traditional machine learning methods. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves a mean absolute error of 0.67-0.91 days for delayed-shipment predictions, outperforming single-step tree-based regression baselines by 41-64% and two-step classify-then-regress tree-based models by 15-35%. These gains demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model in operational delivery delay forecasting under highly imbalanced and heterogeneous conditions.
Figures & tables
Symbol
Domain/Type
Description
Indices and Counts
N
Positive integer
Number of shipments
K
Positive integer
Number of categorical features
M
Positive integer
Number of numerical features
i
{1,…,N}
Shipment index
k
{1,…,K}
Categorical feature index
Table 1: Mathematical notations and definitions.
Figure 1: Logistics network overview. Shipments si∈S flow from origin locations Lk∈L to destinations Rj∈R , characterized by physical features (weight, volume, items count) and timing information (planned departure/arrival).
Figure 2: Overview of the multi-task learning model. Input features are processed through dedicated embedding layers (categorical and numerical), concatenated, and passed to a shared MLP backbone that produces a hidden representation hi . The backbone output feeds into three task-specific heads: a classification head for binary delay prediction, and dual regression heads for duration estimation. The classification probability p^i is concatenated with hi and passed to both regression heads (dashed arrows). During training, samples are routed to regression heads based on ground truth labels; during inference, routing is determined by the classifier output ( p^i>0.5→ delayed head). Quantile predictions are calibrated via conformal prediction to produce prediction intervals.
Figure 3: Delivery time distributions across locations showing distinct patterns of on-time (yellow) and delayed (blue) shipments. Main plots show the overall distribution, while insets focus on the delayed shipment patterns.
Figure 4: Distribution of shipment volumes across source locations.
Feature
Cardinality
Description
From Location ID
4
Source location identifier
From City
4
City of shipment origin
From Postal Code
4
Postal code of origin
From Country System ID
4
Country code for origin
To Location ID
198,019
Destination location identifier
To City
34,572
Destination city name
Table 2: Summary of Categorical Features
Feature
Unit
Description
Service Order Weight
Kilograms
Total weight of the shipment
Service Order Volume
Cubic meters
Total volume of the shipment
Total Number of Items
Count
Number of individual items in shipment
Destination City Latitude
Degrees
Destination city latitude coordinate
Destination City Longitude
Degrees
Destination city longitude coordinate
Distance
Kilometers
Direct distance between origin and destination
Table 3: Summary of Numerical Features
Metric
Formula
Description
Delay Duration Estimation
MAE (O/D)
∣Dtest∗∣1i∈Dtest∗∑∣yi−y^i(0.5)∣
Mean absolute error between actual delays and median predictions (days).
Proportion of true delays within prediction intervals. Target: 80% ( α=0.2 ).
AIW (O/D)
∣Dtest∗∣1i∈Dtest∗∑(y^i(0.9)−y^i(0.1))
Average interval width (days).
Table 4: Summary of Evaluation Metrics
Model
L1
L2
L3
L4
Avg-QL (↓)
MAE (↓)
Avg-QL (↓)
MAE (↓)
Avg-QL (↓)
MAE (↓)
Avg-QL (↓)
MAE (↓)
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
Ovr
Del
XGB-S1
0.05
0.52
0.10
1.43
0.13
0.58
0.33
1.48
0.17
0.59
0.41
1.85
0.16
0.64
0.32
1.70
CatB-S1
0.05
0.76
0.11
1.72
0.14
0.59
0.41
1.59
0.18
0.62
0.41
1.86
0.16
0.79
0.30
1.86
XGB-S2
0.11
0.46
0.23
1.02
0.20
0.52
0.40
1.16
0.28
0.40
0.60
0.90
0.20
0.67
0.41
1.40
CatB-S2
0.10
0.47
0.21
1.00
0.17
0.55
0.37
1.24
0.32
0.33
0.70
0.81
0.19
0.65
0.34
1.40
Table 5: Point prediction performance across locations. Best delayed performance per location highlighted in bold. Lower values indicate better performance. Ovr = overall instances, Del = delayed instances only.
Model
Type
L1
L2
L3
L4
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
XGB-S1
Overall
0.843
0.381
0.926
0.769
0.650
2.135
0.823
0.663
3.128
0.700
0.438
3.131
Delayed
0.435
1.442
8.411
0.422
1.406
9.914
0.455
1.346
8.453
0.197
0.862
10.768
CatB-S1
Overall
0.729
0.412
1.124
0.648
0.653
2.105
0.561
0.562
3.232
0.642
0.392
3.284
Delayed
0.358
0.986
9.542
0.480
1.493
9.906
0.350
1.017
9.471
0.103
0.741
13.842
XGB-S2
Overall
0.864
0.184
2.255
0.769
0.438
3.983
0.647
0.719
5.481
0.768
0.153
4.095
Table 6: Uncertainty quantification performance (pre-calibration). Target coverage is 80% ( α=0.2 ). Best delayed performance per location highlighted in bold for Coverage and WS. For Coverage, higher is better; for AIW and WS, lower is better.
Model
Type
L1
L2
L3
L4
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
Cov ↑
AIW ↓
WS ↓
XGB-S1
Overall
0.846
0.384
0.924
0.847
0.659
2.132
0.826
0.664
3.126
0.774
0.440
3.129
Delayed
0.438
1.448
8.396
0.426
1.418
9.869
0.457
1.348
8.450
0.199
0.865
10.762
CatB-S1
Overall
0.812
0.578
1.386
0.764
0.816
2.348
0.678
0.694
2.986
0.728
0.524
3.086
Delayed
0.362
0.992
9.538
0.484
1.502
9.873
0.406
1.024
9.436
0.108
0.749
13.718
XGB-S2
Overall
0.870
0.186
2.248
0.776
0.443
3.972
0.654
0.726
5.468
0.772
0.155
4.086
Table 7: Uncertainty quantification performance (post-calibration). Target coverage is 80% ( α=0.2 ). Best delayed performance per location highlighted in bold for Coverage and WS. For Coverage, higher is better; for AIW and WS, lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Range
Scale
n_estimators
[200, 2000]
linear
max_depth
[3, 12]
linear
learning_rate
[1e-3, 0.3]
log
subsample
[0.6, 1.0]
linear
colsample_bytree
[0.6, 1.0]
linear
gamma
[0, 5]
linear
Appendix
Table 8: Hyperparameter Search Space for XGBoost
Parameter
Range
Scale
iterations
[200, 1500]
linear
depth
[4, 12]
linear
learning_rate
[1e-3, 0.3]
log
l2_leaf_reg
[1, 30]
linear
border_count
[32, 255]
linear
bagging_temperature
[0, 10]
linear
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameter Search Space for CatBoost
Parameter
Range / Values
n_blocks
[2, 12]
d_hidden
{128, 192, 256, 320, 384}
dropout
[0.0, 0.5]
weight_decay
[1e-6, 3e-3]
gradient_clip_norm
{None, 1.0, 5.0}
batch_size
{256, 512, 1024, 2048}
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameter search space for the multitask deep learning model.
The early detection of delayed cases in business processes is a critical capability for organizations. Predictive process monitoring (PPM) supports this task by using historical event logs to predict the remaining time of ongoing cases, enabling timely interventions to avoid missed deadlines and service level violations. Although remaining time prediction has advanced considerably through sophisticated deep learning architectures, little is known about the intrinsic difficulty of delay detection itself. Since performance is typically assessed using aggregate metrics, prior work provides limited insight into how models perform across the target distribution, especially on the operationally most critical cases with large delays. In this paper, we address this gap by analyzing the difficulty of delay detection. Across 14 event logs, we show that remaining times are typically strongly right-skewed, with only a small fraction of cases exhibiting large delays. Existing models capture the mode of this distribution well but perform poorly on high-delay cases. We further uncover pronounced heteroscedasticity, showing that predictive uncertainty increases with delay magnitude. Based on these findings, we evaluate approaches to mitigate the imbalance problem, but find only limited benefits, suggesting that the key underlying problem may not be imbalance but higher uncertainty associated with delayed cases. We show that this correlation can be exploited to substantially improve the identification of delayed cases. Overall, our work provides new insights into the sources of difficulty in delay detection and identifies uncertainty-aware modeling as a promising direction for future PPM research.
Keyvan Amiri Elyasi, Lukas Kirchdorfer, Heiner Stuckenschmidt
Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany · SAP Signavio, Walldorf, Germany
Modern logistics networks generate rich operational data streams at every warehouse node and transportation lane -- from order timestamps and routing records to shipping manifests -- yet predicting delivery delays remains predominantly reactive. Existing predictive approaches typically treat this problem either as a tabular classification task, ignoring network topology, or as a time-series anomaly detection task, overlooking the spatial dependencies of the supply chain graph. To bridge this gap, we propose a hybrid deep learning framework for proactive supply chain risk management. The proposed method jointly models temporal order-flow dynamics via a lightweight Transformer patch encoder and inter-hub relational dependencies through an Edge-Aware Graph Attention Network (E-GAT), optimized via a multi-task learning objective. Evaluated on the real-world DataCo Smart Supply Chain dataset, our framework achieves consistent improvements over baseline methods, yielding an F1-score of 0.8762 and an AUC-ROC of 0.9773. Across four independent random seeds, the framework exhibits a cross-seed F1 standard deviation of only 0.0089 -- a 3.8 times improvement over the best ablated variant -- achieving the strongest balance of predictive accuracy and training stability among all evaluated models.
Zhiming Xue, Menghao Huo, Yujue Wang
College of Engineering, Northeastern University Boston, USA · School of Engineering, Santa Clara University Santa Clara, USA · Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University of New Mexico Albuquerque, USA
The purpose of this research is to find data and methods using machine learning and deep learning to correctly predict the estimated travel time for transportation and logistics in a supply chain system. The supply chain ecosystem is very complex and heavily relies on the transportation and logistics of raw materials and finished goods. Accurate travel time estimation is critical because it helps supply chain members to improve logistics consistency and performance. This helps in planning, demand forecasting, lead time management and assembly planning. The logistics on the delivery side of the customer also plays a crucial role in customer satisfaction and voice of customer. With the collection of huge historical data and using novel techniques, the research builds an accurate model to predict travel time of inventory.