MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200522767 · doi:10.1155/2021/5316574

Optimization Problem of Pricing and Seat Allocation Based on Bilevel Multifollower Programming in High-Speed Railway

2021· article· en· W4200522767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lianbo Deng, Jing Xu, Ningxin Zeng, Xinlei Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBilevel optimizationTrainComputer scienceMathematical optimizationRevenueOperations researchProgramming paradigmOptimization problemEngineeringEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the multistage pricing and seat allocation problems for multiple train services in a high-speed railway (HSR) with multiple origins and destinations (ODs). Taking the maximum total revenue of all trains as the objective function, a joint optimization model of multistage pricing and seat allocation is established. The actual operation constraints, including train seat capacity constraints, price time constraints in each period, and price space constraints among products, are fully considered. We reformulate the optimization model as a bilevel multifollower programming model in which the upper-level model solves the seat allocation problem for all trains serving multiple ODs in the whole booking horizon and the lower optimizes the pricing decisions for each train serving each OD in different decision periods. The upper and lower are a large-scale static seat allocation programming and many small-scale multistage dynamic pricing programming which can be solved independently, respectively. The solving difficulty can be significantly reduced by decomposing. Then, we design an effective solution method based on divide-and-conquer strategy. A real instance of the China’s Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway is employed to validate the advantages of the proposed model and the solution method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207