The Effect of Regret-Based Risky Route Choice on the Traffic Equilibrium for Emergency Evacuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the research on human decision-making under risk and uncertainty, the purpose of this paper is to analyze evacuees’ risky route decision behavior and its effect on traffic equilibrium. It examines the possibility of applying regret theory to model travellers’ regret-taking behavior and network equilibrium in emergency context. By means of modifying the utility function in expected utility theory, a regret-based evacuation traffic equilibrium model is established, accounting for the evacuee’s psychological behavior of regret aversion and risk aversion. Facing two parallel evacuation routes choice situation, the effect of evacuees’ risk aversion and regret aversion on traffic equilibrium is numerically investigated as well as the road capacity reduction from natural disaster. The findings reveal that evacuees prefer the riskless route with the lower travel time as the increase of the regret aversion degree. The equilibrium tends to be achieved when more evacuees choose the safer route jointly affected by risk aversion and regret aversion. Moreover, an optimization model for disaster occurring possibility is formulated to assess the traffic system performance for evacuation management. These findings are helpful for understanding how the regret aversion and risk aversion influence traffic equilibrium.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".