Evolutionary Game Model of Civil Aviation and High-Speed Rail Interaction Strategies Based on the Passenger Ticket and Carbon Trading Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study elaborated an evolutionary game model to optimize the decision-making process on the interaction between civil aviation and high-speed rail under alternative passenger ticket prices (PTPs) and carbon trading prices (CTPs). First, a logit model was used to calculate the passenger flow distribution rate in civil aviation and HSR, and their revenue loss function was determined according to varying PTPs and CTPs. Second, an evolutionary game model with incomplete information was developed to assess the respective revenues. Third, the stable strategy solution of the game model was derived from replicator dynamics, and an investigation of stable conditions under variable cases was performed. Finally, the simulation of a case study on the Beijing–Shanghai corridor was conducted to validate the proposed model’s feasibility. The additional revenue is shown to be the key influencing factor, mainly controlling the strategic decisions of airport and high-speed rail companies. Besides, the final strategy was strongly influenced by the alteration of PTPs and CTPs: higher PTPs promoted civil aviation and high-speed rail collaboration, while increased CTPs forced their competing behavior. The results obtained are instrumental in outlining the optimal strategy range for passenger ticket and carbon trading prices, encouraging high-speed transportation system growth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".