MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893693072 · doi:10.1155/2018/4530787

Optimizing High-Speed Railroad Timetable with Passenger and Station Service Demands: A Case Study in the Wuhan-Guangzhou Corridor

2018· article· en· W2893693072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin Wang, Leishan Zhou, Yixiang Yue, Jinjin Tang, Zixi Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Railway
KeywordsColumn generationComputationScheduling (production processes)Branch and boundComputer scienceMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsSpeedupInteger programmingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207