High‐speed rail cost recovery time based on an integer optimization model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary With increasing gasoline prices, electric high‐speed rail (HSR) systems represent one means to mitigate overexposure to volatile prices. However, additional research is needed related to funding this infrastructure. In this paper, we develop a new integer optimization model to address this problem and use a hypothetical case study to demonstrate the approach. The objective of the approach is to minimize the time period in which the cost of HSR construction and operation can be recovered. This is an iterative process based on an integer optimization model, whose objective function is to determine the optimum recovery time (ORT), by setting the HSR ticket price and frequency. Embedded in the optimization model is a multinomial logit model for calculating the demand for HSR as a function of these decision variables, thus capturing the effects of level of service on market share. In particular, the optimization model accounts for the role of different types of subsidies toward HSR construction (one‐time subsidies at construction, annual subsidies, and subsidies depending on frequency). This method can also help determine whether an HSR system should be built or how much subsidy should be provided given a fixed expected cost recovery time. By integrating the logit model into the objective function evaluation, the effects of ticket price and service frequency on service demand can be directly captured. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".