Reliability Optimization Model of Stop-Skipping Bus Operation with Capacity Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a bus line with high passenger demand, the stop-skipping operation can benefit both users and operators as well as improve the service level of bus line, but it usually cannot be effectively adopted by operators because of the unordered operation of buses and the discomfort of waiting passenger at stops. Therefore, the stop-skipping operation requires higher reliability for stop serving. This paper proposes a reliable stop-skipping service design with holding strategy by taking into account bus capacity constraints. Under a stop-skipping service, the holding strategy is used to balance the interval of stop serving rather than the headway of buses. Meanwhile, to reflect the actual boarding process of waiting passengers, the number of left-over passengers and the waiting time are calculated during serving time and holding time, respectively. The objective function is to minimize the total costs of bus operation system. Besides, a Genetic Algorithm combined with Monte Carlo Simulation method is defined and implemented to solve the reliability optimization model. Finally, a numerical example based on a bus route in Changchun city is carried out to test the reliability optimization model. Results showed that the reliability optimization strategy can improve the stability of stop service and then save cost of passengers’ travel time.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".