MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981764214 · doi:10.1002/atr.149

A computational model for the probit‐based dynamic stochastic user optimal traffic assignment problem

2010· article· en· W1981764214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiang Meng, Hooi Ling Khoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational complexity theoryComputer scienceMathematical optimizationProbitSet (abstract data type)Cell Transmission ModelCovariancePoint (geometry)AlgorithmComputational modelIterative methodMathematicsMachine learningStatisticsEngineeringTraffic congestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207