Optimization Problem of Pricing and Seat Allocation Based on Bilevel Multifollower Programming in High-Speed Railway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".