A Stochastic Programming Approach for Scheduling Extra Metro Trains to Serve Passengers from Uncertain Delayed High-Speed Railway Trains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metro system is an important component of the urban transportation system due to the large volume of transported passengers. Hub stations connecting metro and high-speed railway (HSR) networks are particularly critical in this system. When HSR trains are delayed due to a disruption on the HSR network, passengers of these trains arriving at the hub station at night may fail to get their last metro connection. The metro operator can thus decide to schedule extra metro trains at night to serve passengers from delayed HSR trains. In this paper, we consider the extra metro train scheduling problem in which the metro operator decides how many extra metro trains to dispatch and their schedules. The problem is complex because (i) the arrival of delayed HSR trains is usually uncertain, and (ii) the operator has to minimize operating costs (i.e., number of additional trains and operation-ending time) but maximize the number of served passengers, which are two conflicting objectives. In other words, the problem we consider is stochastic and biobjective. We formulate this problem as a two-stage stochastic program with recourse and use an epsilon-constrained method to find a set of nondominated solutions. We perform extensive numerical experiments using realistic instances based on the Beijing metro network and two HSR lines connected to this network. We find that our stochastic model outperforms out-of-sample a deterministic model that relies on forecasts of the delay by a range of 3–5%. Moreover, we show that our solutions are nearly optimal by computing a perfect information dual bound and obtaining average optimality gaps below 1%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".