An Affinity Propagation-Based Clustering Method for the Temporal Dynamics Management of High-Speed Railway Passenger Demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of passengers in a high-speed railway line normally varies significantly by the time periods, such as the peak and nonpeak hours. A reasonable classification of railway operation time intervals is essential for an adaptive adjustment of the train schedule. However, the passenger flow intervals are usually classified manually based on experience, which is subjective and inaccurate. Based on the time samples of actual passenger demand data for 365 days, this paper proposes an affinity propagation (AP) algorithm to automatically classify the passenger flow intervals. Specifically, the AP algorithm first merges time samples into different categories together with the passenger transmit volume of the stations, which are used as descriptive variables. Furthermore, clustering validity indexes, such as Calinski–Harabasz, Hartigan, and In-Group Proportion, are employed to examine the clustering results, and reasonable passenger flow intervals are finally obtained. A case study of the Zhengzhou-Xi’an high-speed railway indicates that our proposed AP algorithm has the best performance. Moreover, based on the passenger flow interval classification results obtained using the AP algorithm, the train operation plan fits the passenger demand better. As a result, the indexes of passenger demand satisfaction rate, average train occupancy rate, and passenger flow rate are improved by 7.6%, 16.7%, and 14.1%, respectively, in 2014. In 2015, the above three indicators are improved by 5.7%, 18.4%, and 14.4%, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".