Joint Optimal Train Rescheduling and Passenger Flow Control for Speed Limit and High-Demand Scenarios of Urban Rail Transits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the operation of urban rail transits, train delays occur frequently, and emergency management is one of the key factors to ensure the service quality. For speed limit scenarios with high demand, this paper takes the train running in the restricted manual (RM) mode in the speed limit zone as an example and discusses a coping method by jointing train rescheduling and passenger flow control. With the goal of maximizing the number of passengers served and minimizing total train delay, a nonlinear optimization model is constructed by taking the train operation-related requirements and passenger flow control-related indicators as constraints, and the model is reformulated to a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model with quadratic constraints, which can be solved by the Gurobi solver. In order to obtain effective solutions faster, a two-stage approach is discussed, which first obtains a rescheduling timetable and then dynamically adjusts the requirement of boarding equalization to obtain the passenger flow control scheme. The validity of the model and the solution approach are discussed with the help of numerical experiments. The results suggest that the model and solution approach are feasible. When the number of trains is fixed, the reasonable implementation of passenger flow control will help to increase the number of passengers served, and the pursuit of a higher equalization of boarding is not conducive to the number of passengers served and the full utilization of transport capacity. The two-stage approach has certain advantages over the direct computing method. The methods in this paper have a guiding value for emergency decision-making in similar delay scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".