Comparison of Two Algorithms for Multiline Bus Dynamic Dispatching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic bus scheduling refers to adjusting the departure time according to the latest time‐varying information or adjusting bus speed in the process of operation. These control strategies can prevent bus bunching and alleviate traffic pressure. The paper studies the multiline bus dynamic scheduling with consideration of departure time and speed meanwhile. The hyperheuristic algorithm is proposed, and low‐level heuristics (LLH) operators are designed. The simulation experiment is performed for the passenger flow distribution of different strengths and types of different scenarios. By comparing the experimental results of genetic algorithm (GA) and hyperheuristic algorithm in solving different scenarios, the results show that in smooth, increasing, decreasing, and multiconvex passenger flow mode, the performance of the hyperheuristic algorithm is higher than that of GA. The promotion rate reaches 18∼28%, and especially the average value of the hyperheuristic algorithm designed under multiconvex passenger flow is up to 28.62%, significantly reducing passengers’ waiting time. By comparing the stability of the three passenger flow modes, the results illustrate that the stability of the hyperheuristic algorithm is lower than that of GA. For the smooth passenger flow mode, the stability of medium and lower density of GA is higher than that of the hyperheuristic algorithm. In comparison, the high‐density stability of the hyperheuristic algorithm is better than that of GA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".