Evaluating the Impacts of Optimization Horizon on the Shared Autonomous Vehicle Reservation Request System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of technology, shared autonomous vehicles may become one of the main traffic modes in the future. Especially, shared autonomous vehicle reservation system, commuting, and other trips with fixed departure time mostly submit their travel requests in advance. Therefore, it is important to reasonably match shared autonomous vehicles and reservation demands. In this paper, reservation requests are divided into short-term and long-term requests by inputting requests in a more realistic way. An integer linear programming model considering operator scheduling cost and system service level is established. A detailed scheme considering rolling horizon continuity and ridesharing is used to improve the dispatching result. Based on traffic data in Delft, the Netherlands, 164 scenarios are tested in which the parking cost, fuel cost, ridesharing effect, service level, and network size are analyzed. The results show that a better relocation and ridesharing matching scheme can be obtained when the rolling horizon is small, while the overall effect is better when the rolling horizon is large. Moreover, the buffer time, distance, and travel time limit for vehicle relocation should be selected according to the request quantity and the calculation time requirement. The result can provide a suggestion for the dispatching of shared autonomous vehicle reservation system with ridesharing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".