Design and analysis of demand‐adapted railway timetables
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 Railway scheduling and timetabling are common stages in the classical hierarchical railway planning process and they perhaps represent the step with major influence on user's perception about quality of service. This aspect, in conjunction with their contribution to service profitability, makes them a widely studied topic in the literature, where, nowadays, many efforts are focused on improving the solving methods of the corresponding optimization problems. However, literature about models considering detailed descriptions of passenger demand is sparse. This paper tackles the problem of timetable determination by means of building and solving a nonlinear integer programming model that fits the arrival and departure train times to a dynamic behavior of demand. The optimization model results are then used for computing several measures to characterize the quality of the obtained timetables considering jointly both user and company points of view. Some aspects are discussed, including the influence of train capacity and the validity of Random Incidence Theorem. An application to the C5 line of Madrid rapid transit system is presented. Different measures are analyzed in order to improve the insight into the proposed model and analyze in advance the influence of different objectives on the resulting timetable. 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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