A computational model for the probit‐based dynamic stochastic user optimal traffic assignment problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper focuses on computational model development for the probit‐based dynamic stochastic user optimal (P‐DSUO) traffic assignment problem. We first examine a general fixed‐point formulation for the P‐DSUO traffic assignment problem, and subsequently propose a computational model that can find an approximated solution of the interest problem. The computational model includes four components: a strategy to determine a set of the prevailing routes between each origin–destination pair, a method to estimate the covariance of perceived travel time for any two prevailing routes, a cell transmission model‐based traffic performance model to calculate the actual route travel time used by the probit‐based dynamic stochastic network loading procedure, and an iterative solution algorithm solving the customized fixed‐point model. The Ishikawa algorithm is proposed to solve the computational model. A comparison study is carried out to investigate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed algorithm with the method of successive averages. Two numerical examples are used to assess the computational model and the algorithm proposed. Results show that Ishikawa algorithm has better accuracy for smaller network despite requiring longer computational time. Nevertheless, it could not converge for larger network. Copyright © 2010 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".