MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2884524204 · doi:10.1177/0361198118781665

A Bi-Level Passenger Preference-Oriented Line Planning Model for High-Speed Railway Operations

2018· article· en· W2884524204 on OpenAlexaff
Yuxiang Yang, Jie Li, Chao Wen, Ping Huang, Qiyuan Peng, Javad Lessan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageComputer scienceOperations researchLine (geometry)Transport engineeringService levelDedicated lineService (business)Block (permutation group theory)PreferenceEngineeringBusinessComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To solve bottlenecks and capacity shortages in railway corridors, it is necessary to consider passengers’ temporal-spatial preferences in conjunction with train dispatching decisions at the line planning stage. A design of the departure and stop plans which is based on the passengers’ preferences would guarantee a high quality of service. This paper presents a line planning optimization model for high-speed railway (HSR) operations that addresses both the operating costs of lines and passengers’ preferences through a bi-level integer programming (IP) problem. Using actual travel data from the Shenzhen–Changsha HSR in China, we investigate passengers’ travel behavior during different time periods and between several origin and destination (OD) pairs to characterize their spatial-temporal preferences. An IP model is then developed that maximizes the degree of passenger departure time satisfaction (DTS) at the higher level and the operating costs of lines at the lower level. Due to the complexity of the problem, a methodology is proposed to find a conflict-free solution for the proposed model to find train frequencies in each block and their stop plans at each station between the upper- and lower-level models. It is shown that a given passenger trip demand between an origin and a destination could become more flexible by analyzing its time characteristics and the DTS. Finally, a case study is presented to show the effectiveness of the model and the solution approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board→Same topicTransportation Planning and Optimization→French-language works237,207→