Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Braess' paradox illustrates situations when adding a new link to a transport network might lead to an equilibrium state in which travel times of users will increase. The classical network configuration introduced by Braess in 1968 to demonstrate the paradox is of fundamental significance because Valiant and Roughgarden showed in 2006 that ‘the “global” behaviour of an equilibrium flow in a large random network is similar to that in Braess' original four‐node example’. Braess' paradox has been studied mainly in the context of the classical problem introduced by Braess and his colleagues, assuming a certain type of symmetry in networks. Specifically, two pairs of links in those networks are assumed to have the same volume‐delay functions. The occurrence of Braess' paradox for this specific case of network symmetry was investigated by Pas and Principio in 1997. Such a symmetry is not common in real‐life networks because the parameters of volume‐delay functions are associated with roads physical and functional characteristics, which typically differ from one link to another. This research provides an extension of previous studies on Braess' paradox by considering arbitrary volume‐delay functions, that is, symmetry properties are not assumed for any of the network's links and the occurrence of Braess' paradox is studied for a general configuration. 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".