Comparative analysis of three user equilibrium models under stochastic demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent empirical studies on the value of time and reliability reveal that travel time variability plays an important role on travelers' route choice decision process. It can be considered as a risk to travelers making a trip. Therefore, travelers are not only interested in saving their travel time but also in reducing their risk. Typically, risk can be represented by two different aspects: acceptable risk and unacceptable risk. Acceptable risk refers to the reliability aspect of acceptable travel time, which is defined as the average travel time plus the acceptable additional time (or buffer time) needed to ensure more frequent on‐time arrivals, while unacceptable risk refers to the unreliability aspect of unacceptable late arrivals (though infrequent) that have a travel time excessively higher than the acceptable travel time. Most research in the network equilibrium based approach to modeling travel time variability ignores the unreliability aspect of unacceptable late arrivals. This paper examines the effects of both reliability and unreliability aspects in a network equilibrium framework. Specifically, the traditional user equilibrium model, the demand driven travel time reliability‐based user equilibrium model, and the α‐reliable mean‐excess travel time user equilibrium model are considered in the investigation under an uncertain environment due to stochastic travel demand. Numerical results are presented to examine how these models handle risk under travel time variability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".