Optimizing Train-Set Circulation Plan in High-Speed Railway Networks Using Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a sustainable transportation mode, high-speed railway (HSR) has been developing rapidly during the past decade in China. With the formation of dense HSR network, how to improve the utilization efficiency of train-sets (the carrying tools of HSR) has been a new research hotspot. Moreover, the emergence of railway transportation hubs has brought great challenges to the traditional train-sets’ utilization mode. Thus, in this paper, we address the issue of train-sets’ utilization problem with the consideration of railway transportation hubs, which consists of finding an optimal Train-set Circulation Plan (TCP) to complete trip tasks in a given Train Diagram (TD). An integer programming TCP model is established to optimize the train-set utilization scheme, aiming to obtain the one-to-one correspondence relationship among sets of train-sets, trip tasks, and maintenances. A genetic algorithm (GA) is designed to solve the model. A case study based on Nanjing and Shanghai HSR transportation hubs is made to demonstrate the practical significance of the proposed method. The results show that a more efficient TCP can be formulated by introducing train-sets being dispatched among different stations in the same hub.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".