Investigating the irregularity of bus routes: highlighting how underlying assumptions of bus models impact the regularity results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A bus route is inherently unstable: when the system is uncontrolled, buses fail to maintain their time‐headways and tend to bunch. Several mathematical bus motion models were proposed to reproduce the bus behavior and assess management strategies. However, no work has established how the choice of a model impacts the irregularity of modeled bus systems, that is, the non‐respect of scheduled headways. Because of this gap, a large body of existing works assumes that the ability of these models to reproduce instability comes only from stochasticity, although the link between stochastic inputs and the level of irregularity remains unknown. Moreover, some recognized phenomena such as a change of travel conditions during a day or delays at signalized intersections are ignored. To address these shortcomings, this paper provides an overview of existing dynamic bus‐focused models and proposes a simple way to classify them. Commonly used deterministic and stochastic models are compared, which allows quantifying the relative influence of stochasticity of each model component on outputs. Moreover, we show that a change in the system equilibrium in a full deterministic system can lead to irregularity. Finally, this paper proposes a refinement of travel time models to account for non‐dynamic signals. In presence of traffic signals, we show that a bus system can be self‐regulated. Especially, these insights could help to calibrate bus model inputs to better reproduce real data. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it