Activity‐Based Travel Scenario Analysis with Routing Problem Reoptimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity-based travel scenario analysis and network design using a household activity pattern problem (HAPP) can face significant computational cost and inefficiency. One solution approach, called reoptimization, makes use of an optimal solution of a prior problem instance to find a new solution faster and more accurately. Although the method is generally NP-hard as well, the approximation bound has been shown in the literature to be tighter than a full optimization for several traveling salesman problem variations. To date, however, there have not been any computational studies conducted with the method for scenario analysis with generalized vehicle routing problems, nor has there been any metaheuristics designed with reoptimization in mind. A generalized, selective household activity routing problem (G-SHARP) is presented as an extension of the HAPP model to include both destination and schedule choice for the purpose of testing reoptimization. Two reoptimization algorithms are proposed: a simple swap heuristic and a new class of evolutionary algorithms designed for reoptimization, dubbed a Genetic Algorithm with Mitochondrial Eve (GAME). The two algorithms are tested against a standard genetic algorithm in a computational experiment involving 100 zones that include 400 potential activities (resulting in a total of 802 nodes per single-traveler household). Five hundred households are synthesized and computationally tested with a base scenario, a scenario where an office land use in one zone is dezoned, and a scenario where a freeway is added onto the physical network. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of reoptimization heuristics, particularly GAME, and the capability of G-SHARP to capture reallocations of activities and schedules with respect to spatiotemporal changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".