Development of efficient stop planning optimization process for high‐speed rail systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) has recently added three additional stations to its original network. Although the three additional stations can improve accessibility to the system, these new stations can present difficulties in the transportation planning process, particularly for planning of train stops. The additional stations may benefit some passengers, but may also lengthen the travel time for the other passengers. Therefore, the main challenge faced by THSR is finding an efficient way to design appropriate stopping patterns. Past studies on stop planning usually adopted meta‐heuristics or decomposition methods to solve this complex problem. Although these solution techniques can improve solution efficiency, none of them can guarantee the optimality of the solution and capture the transfer movement of different stopping patterns. In this research, we proposed an innovative network structure to address complex stop planning problems for high‐speed rail systems. Given its special network structure, two binary integer programming models were developed to simultaneously form and determine the optimal stopping patterns for real‐world THSR stop planning problems. An optimization process was also developed to accurately estimate the station transfer time corresponding to the variation in stopping patterns and passenger flow. Results of the case studies suggest that the proposed binary integer programming models exhibit superior solution quality and efficiency over existing exact optimization models. Consequently, using this stop planning optimization process can help high‐speed rail system planners in designing optimal stopping patterns that correspond to passenger demand. Copyright © 2017 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".