Train Scheduling Optimization for an Urban Rail Transit Line: A Simulated-Annealing Algorithm Using a Large Neighborhood Search Metaheuristic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an optimization model for an irregular train schedule. The aim is to optimize both the maximum train loading rate and the average deviation of departure intervals under time-varying passenger transport demand for an urban rail transit line in consideration of practical train operation constraints, i.e., headway, running time between stations, dwell time, and capacity. A heuristic simulated-annealing algorithm is designed to solve the optimization model, and a case study of an urban rail transit line is performed to assess its efficacy. The results show that, compared with the current regular train schedule, the total train dwell time under the optimized irregular schedule is reduced from 900 s to 848 s, and the reduction ratio for the maximum train loading rate is from 1.2% to 3.6% for different stations. When the average train departure interval is allowed to vary from 120 to 170 s, the optimized irregular schedule decreases the maximum train loading rate of the collinear and noncollinear sections by 3.21%–4.82% and 2.52%–3.64%, respectively. Sensitivity analysis is performed for a nonnegative weight coefficient, average train departure interval, and proportion of full-length and short-turn routings. The proposed approach can be used to support capacity improvement and schedule optimization for urban rail transit lines.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".