Optimizing Train Timetable Based on Departure Time Preference of Passengers for High-Speed Rails
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passengers would like to choose the most suitable train based on their travel preferences, expenses, and train timetable in the high-speed railway corridor. Meanwhile, the railway department will constantly adjust the train timetable according to the distribution of passenger flows during a day to achieve the optimal operation cost and energy consumption saving plan. The question is how to meet the differential travel needs of passengers and achieve sustainable goals of service providers. Therefore, it is necessary to design a demand-oriented and environment-friendly high-speed railway timetable. This paper formulates the optimization of train timetable for a given high-speed railway corridor, which is based on the interests of both passengers and transportation department. In particular, a traveling time-space network with virtual departure arc is constructed to analyze generalized travel costs of passengers of each origin-destination (OD), and bilevel programming model is used to optimize the problem. The upper integer programming model regards the minimization of the operating cost, which is simplified to the minimum traveling time of total trains, as the goal. The lower level is a user equilibrium model which arranges each OD passenger flow to different trains. A general advanced metaheuristic algorithm embedded with the Frank–Wolfe method is designed to implement the bilevel programming model. Finally, a real-world numerical experiment is conducted to verify the effectiveness of both the model and the algorithm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it