MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4229446693 · doi:10.1155/2022/2780711

Rebalancing Docked Bicycle Sharing System with Approximate Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning

2022· article· en· W4229446693 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Young-Hyun Seo, Dong‐Kyu Kim, Seungmo Kang, Young-Ji Byon, Seung‐Young Kho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of EducationSeoul National UniversityNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMarkov decision processReinforcement learningComputer scienceDynamic programmingQ-learningMarkov chainOperations researchMarkov processRentingMathematical optimizationEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bicycle, an active transportation mode, has received increasing attention as an alternative in urban environments worldwide. However, effectively managing the stock levels of rental bicycles at each station is challenging as demand levels vary with time, particularly when users are allowed to return bicycles at any station. There is a need for system-wide management of bicycle stock levels by transporting available bicycles from one station to another. In this study, a bicycle rebalancing model based on a Markov decision process (MDP) is developed using a real-time dynamic programming method and reinforcement learning considering dynamic system characteristics. The pickup and return demands are stochastic and continuously changing. As a result, the proposed framework suggests the best operation option every 10 min based on the realized system variables and future demands predicted by the random forest method, minimizing the expected unmet demand. Moreover, we adopt custom prioritizing strategies to reduce the number of action candidates for the operator and the computational complexity for practicality in the MDP framework. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the proposed model outperforms existing methods, such as short-term rebalancing and static lookahead policies. Among the suggested prioritizing strategies, focusing on stations with a larger error in demand prediction was found to be the most effective. Additionally, the effects of various safety buffers were examined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicTransportation and Mobility Innovations→French-language works237,207→