Research on Chaotic Characteristics of Cascade Failure in Rail Transit Networks considering Nonlinear Load Fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stable and efficient operation of rail transit networks (RTNs) is critical for the integrated development of metropolitan areas. However, numerous studies have indicated that RTNs are prone to large‐scale cascading failures when subjected to disturbances. To address the limitations of traditional cascading failure models, this paper proposes an innovative cascading failure model for metropolitan areas RTNs, which incorporates nonlinear load fluctuations and the bounded rationality of passengers. This model aims to capture the cascading failure characteristics of RTNs with chaotic properties under 12 combination strategies. A single‐ and dual‐parameter coupling analysis of chaotic evolution parameters and prospect theory parameters are conducted. Taking the RTN in the Chengdu metropolitan area as an example, both the static characteristics and cascading failure features of the network are analyzed. The findings reveal the following: (i) the RTN is a assortativity network and lacks small‐world and scale‐free properties. (ii) During network disturbances, a higher level of passenger familiarity with the network increases the likelihood of large‐scale cascading failures. (iii) When passengers tend to avoid risks, stations with higher carrying capacity are more prone to failures. This study holds significant implications for ensuring the stable and reliable operation of rail transit systems within metropolitan areas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".