MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163144070 · doi:10.1109/tits.2021.3071153

Computationally Efficient Dynamic Traffic Optimization of Railway Systems

2022· article· en· W3163144070 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robin Vujanic, Andrew J. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRio TintoAustralian Centre for Field Robotics
KeywordsComputationTrainComputer scienceMathematical optimizationDeadlockKey (lock)Optimization problemDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate dynamic traffic optimization in railway systems, i.e., the behavior of these systems through time when their movements are dictated by solutions to optimization models with finite horizons. As interactions between trains are not considered beyond the limits of finite horizons, the danger of leading the system into a deadlock arises. In this paper we present new procedures to establish finite prediction horizons that are formally guaranteed to operate the system in a way that is compatible with the physical constraints of the network while avoiding deadlocking and minimizing computations. The key to this result is the notion of <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">recursive feasibility</i> . This paper introduces conditions sufficient to attain it. We then discuss several important ramifications of recursive feasibility that enable efficient computations. We examine the possibility of decomposing the underlying optimization models into smaller models with shorter horizons, or into models that only consider subsets of all trains. We also discuss warm starting and anytime approaches. We finally perform numerical experiments verifying these results on models that include a real-world railway system used for freight transport. On harder instances, some of our approaches outperform solving the same models as monolithic MILPs by more than two order of magnitude in terms of median computation times, while also achieving better worst–case optimality gaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207