Driving Strategy Using an Improved Ant Colony System for Energy‐Efficient Train
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal energy‐efficient train operation optimization is one of the widely studied areas in transportation science, which can significantly reduce energy consumption that accounts for a large proportion of operating costs. In order to adapt to the complex and changeable railway line conditions such as gradient, slope length, and speed limit and avoid the error in tracking speed curve, an optimal driving strategy decision‐making (ODSD) model is proposed in this paper. The model considers the non‐fixed sequence of driving regimes, and the regimes are directly selected in the discrete micro‐subsegments of an equal time‐division pattern. To solve this model efficiently, an improved ant colony system algorithm with the difference edges (ACSd) is proposed, which takes the heuristic effect of the difference between the best solutions of two adjacent iterations, i.e., “the difference edges,” into account. Additionally, energy‐efficient heuristic factor and speed heuristic factor are presented to balance energy saving and speed. The results demonstrate that ACSd performs better than the basic ant colony system algorithm in solving traveling salesman problem (TSP) and provides more flexible driving strategies for the ODSD model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".