Optimizing High-Speed Railroad Timetable with Passenger and Station Service Demands: A Case Study in the Wuhan-Guangzhou Corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to optimize high-speed railroad timetables for a corridor. We propose an integer programming model using a time-space network-based approach to consider passenger service demands, train scheduling, and station service demands simultaneously. A modified branch-and-price algorithm is used for the computation. This algorithm solves the linear relaxation of all nodes in a branch-and-bound tree using a column generation algorithm to derive a lower-bound value (LB) and derive an upper-bound value (UB) using a rapid branching strategy. The optimal solution is derived by iteratively updating the upper- and lower-bound values. Three acceleration strategies, namely, initial solution iteration, delayed constraints, and column removal, were designed to accelerate the computation. The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed model and algorithm were tested using Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railroad data. The results show that the proposed model and algorithm can quickly reduce the defined cost function by 38.2% and improve the average travel speed by 10.7 km/h, which indicates that our proposed model and algorithm can effectively improve the quality of a constructed train timetable and the travel efficiency for passengers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".