Optimal Parking Slots Reservation and Allocation Problem for Periodic Parking Platforms with Preference Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various solutions, such as parking reservation systems, have been proposed to alleviate the difficulty in finding parking slots. In such systems, parking requests are submitted in advance by drivers, and the systems will reserve appropriate parking spots for drivers if their requests are accepted. However, the parking slots may be allocated unreasonably, which may lead to a waste of space and time resources. In addition, there is a game relationship between operator’s profit (OP) and users’ benefits (UB), which may affect the sustainable development of the system, if balanced improperly. Given the drivers’ arrival and departure time and their parking preference, the paper proposes a periodic reservation and allocation mode (PRAM) and establishes a dual-objective binary integer linear model to solve the reservation and allocation problem. The model aims to maximize the comprehensive benefits of the operator and users and to take full advantage of parking resources. We proposed a TOPSIS-SA algorithm (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution and Simulated Annealing algorithm) to solve our model. Numerical experiments show that our model performs better than the baseline models on all performance metrics such as total operating profit, users’ average walking distance, acceptance rate, and utilization of parking slots.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".