Optimal Tradable Credit Scheme Design with Recommended Credit Price
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an interesting research topic in transportation field, tradable credit scheme (TCS) has been extensively explored in the latest decade. Existing studies implicitly assumed that travelers are clear about the equilibrium credit price and make their trips accordingly. However, this may not be the case in reality, since the credit price is endogenously determined by the credit-trading behavior, especially in the early stages after the implementation of a TCS. Considering travelers’ uncertainty on the equilibrium credit price, this paper aims to investigate the impacts of perception error on credit price and how to accommodate such errors by an appropriate scheme design. Transferring the perception error on credit price to a given and fixed value released by central authority, we first investigate the impacts of recommended credit price under a given TCS. The numerical results imply that it is necessary to simultaneously consider the choice of recommended credit price and charging scheme in TCS design. Regarding this, we combine the goals of social welfare and public acceptance of the scheme and propose a bilevel biobjective programming (BLBOP) model, by which the net economic benefit is maximized while the gap between the recommended and realized credit prices is minimized. Through two numerical examples, it is found that the rise in perception variance could intensify the contradiction effect between the two objectives. Additionally, a nonnegligible price gap must be allowed to occur to maintain the effectiveness of a TCS.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".