MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198376353 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v31i1.15994

Scalable Rail Planning and Replanning: Winning the 2020 Flatland Challenge

2021· article· en· W3198376353 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiaoyang Li, Zhe Chen, Yi Zheng, Shao-Hung Chan, Daniel Harabor, Peter J. Stuckey, Hang Ma, Sven Koenig

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMonash UniversityNational Science FoundationDeutsche BahnUniversity of Southern CaliforniaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceTrainDistributed computingDeadlockSimulated annealingSoftwareMotion planningPlan (archaeology)GraphMathematical optimizationOperations researchEngineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) is the combinatorial problem of finding collision-free paths for multiple agents on a graph. This paper describes MAPF-based software for solving train planning and replanning problems on large-scale rail networks under uncertainty. The software recently won the 2020 Flatland Challenge, a NeurIPS competition trying to determine how to efficiently manage dense traffic on rail networks. The software incorporates many state-of-the-art MAPF or, in general, optimization technologies, such as prioritized planning, large neighborhood search, safe interval path planning, minimum communication policies, parallel computing, and simulated annealing. It can plan collision-free paths for thousands of trains within a few minutes and deliver deadlock-free actions in real-time during execution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207