Metro Train Operation Plan Analysis Based on Station Travel Time Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The train operation plan plays an essential role in metro systems and directly affects transportation organization efficiency and passenger service level. In metro systems, passengers have paid more attention to the travel time reliability (TTR), reflecting the reliability of metro operation management. This article proposes an analysis method of train operation plan based on TTR in the station dimension. First, an automated fare collection (AFC) data-driven framework is established to calculate the station travel time reliability (STTR) and analyze the train operation plan at different periods. The framework structure consists of four steps: AFC data preprocessing, STTR calculation and assignment, clustering algorithm design based on SOM neural network, and train operation plan analysis and optimization. Second, the proposed method is applied to the Beijing metro network as a case study. Several promising results are analyzed that allow the optimization of the existing train operation plan. Our research shows that STTR is a good supplement for the existing metro operation assignment studies, which can help analyze and optimize the train operation plan effectively. This study is also applicable to other metro networks with AFC systems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".