Collaborative Optimization of Passenger Control Strategy and Train Operation Plan with Variable Formations for a Rail Transit Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We proposed a passenger control strategy and train operation plan collaborative optimization (PCS&TOP) model to schedule the train operation that improves the efficiency of passengers’ travel and reduces the cost of train operation for a rail transit network. The model is an integer non linear programming model that aims to minimize the entrance and platform waiting time of passengers and the operation cost of trains. The timetable and variable train formation are integrated optimized, and the turnaround of rolling stock is also considered by constructing the train operation constraints for the model. The coordination of timetables on different lines and the coordination of passenger control strategies at different stations are mentioned by considering the transfer passengers when constructing the passenger control constraints. To solve the model, a multi-operator simulated annealing (MOSA) algorithm that includes three types of execution operators corresponding to three main decision variables is proposed. A numerical case that includes 2 bidirectional crossed lines and a real-world case from China are introduced to test the efficiency of the proposed method, which demonstrates better performance than the single and respective optimization solutions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".