Route Choice on Transit Networks with Online Information at Stops
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passengers on a transit network with common lines are often faced with the problem of choosing between either to board the arriving bus or to wait for a faster one. Many assignment models are based on the classical assumption that at a given stop passengers board the first arriving carrier of a certain subset of the available lines, often referred to as the attractive set. In this case, it has been shown that, if the headway distributions are exponential, then an optimal subset of lines minimizing the passenger travel time can be easily determined. However, when online information on future arrivals of buses are posted at the stop, it is unlikely that the above classical assumption holds. In this case, passengers may choose to board a line that offers the best combination of displayed waiting time and expected travel time to their destination once boarded. In this paper, we propose a general framework for determining the probability of boarding each line available at a stop when online information on bus waiting times is provided to passengers. We will also show that the classical model without online information may be interpreted as a particular instance of the proposed framework, this way achieving an extension to general headway distributions. The impact of the availability of information regarding bus arrivals and that of the regularity of transit lines on the network loads, as well as on the passenger travel times, will be illustrated with small numerical examples.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it