MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903903106 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2018.0819

Stochastic Network Design for Planning Scheduled Transportation Services: The Value of Deterministic Solutions

2018· article· en· W2903903106 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Wang, Teodor Gabriel Crainic, Stein W. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationNetwork planning and designStochastic optimizationPath (computing)Stochastic programmingQuality (philosophy)Stochastic processMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the value of deterministic solutions, in particular their quality and upgradability, in addressing stochastic network design problems, by analyzing their time-dependent formulations known as scheduled service network design problems in freight transportation planning. We study several problem variants and models and investigate, for each case, the immediate quality of the deterministic solutions stemming from the 50th and the 75th percentile of the demand distributions. We then show that for all models, but in different ways, we are able to make effective use of parts of the deterministic solution, confirming the value of the deterministic solution in the stochastic environment, even when the deterministic solution itself performs badly. We also investigate what makes the optimal stochastic solution better in the stochastic environment than other feasible solutions, particularly those obtained by addressing deterministic versions of the problem. We do this by quantitatively analyzing the structures of different solutions. A measurement scheme is proposed to evaluate the level of potentially beneficial structural properties (multipath usage and path sharing) in different solutions. We show that these structural properties are important and correlated with the performance of a solution in the stochastic environment. Data and the online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0819 .

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207