Reliable Urban Transportation Network Design Problem Considering Recurrent Traffic Congestions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic congestion is one of the main reasons for the unsustainability of an urban transportation network. Changes in travel demand and streets’ capacity lead to traffic congestion in urban transportation networks, which is known as recurrent traffic congestion. This study aims to assess the performance reliability of urban transportation networks subject to recurrent traffic congestion conditions in order to help travelers to find alternative non-congested routes. A non-congested route is a route without any congested link. The network reliability is defined and modeled as two different scenarios; users’ unawareness of the network’s traffic congestion and users’ ongoing awareness of the network’s traffic congestion. In addition, a reliable network design model is provided to optimize the reliability of the network taking into account street widening policy and budget constraints. Lastly, a Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Meta-Heuristic Algorithm is adopted; while maintaining accuracy, to reduce problem-solving time and providing the possibility of solving large-scale problems for real networks. To show the applicability of the proposed models and algorithm, they have been implemented on the Sioux Falls transportation network. The results indicate users’ awareness of traffic congestion in the network increases its reliability, and centrally located links are the first candidates for street widening.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".