A Comparative Analysis of the Effect of Route Set Size in Logit and Weibit-Based Stochastic Traffic Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of the effect of route set size on stochastic user equilibrium (SUE) traffic assignment, focusing on both logit-based (Multinomial Logit (MNL) and Path Size Logit (PSL)) and weibit-based models (Multinomial Weibit (MNW) and Path Size Weibit (PSW)). The primary objective is to investigate the influence of route set size on traffic patterns and determine the minimum requisite number of routes for flow stabilization within the SUE framework. The analysis, conducted on the Winnipeg network using a customized Self-Regulated Averaging (SRA) scheme, yields three key findings. First, all models successfully converged, but the weibit-based models (MNW and PSW) converged faster than the logit-based models. Second, an analysis of perceived total travel time demonstrated that the majority of efficiency gains from route inclusion diminish after a threshold of approximately maximum 30 routes to 40 routes per O-D pair, indicating this number is sufficient for achieving stable SUE results in both model families. Third, the weibit-based model was found to be more sensitive to route overlap effects, continuing to adjust flow patterns up to maximum 45 routes per O-D pair, and exhibiting a greater tendency to allocate flow to less overlapping outer roads. This highlights the superior capability of the weibit formulation, which accounts for heterogeneous perception variance, to achieve a more behaviorally realistic equilibrium compared to the logit models.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".