4.5 Article

Hyperbush Algorithm for Strategy-Based Equilibrium Traffic Assignment Problems

期刊

TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 877-903

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/trsc.2021.1113

关键词

strategy-based equilibrium; traffic assignment; hyperpath; hyperbush

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a modeling framework for strategy-based equilibrium traffic assignment (SETA) problems and obtains more precise solutions at a lower computational cost using the hyperbush algorithm (HBA). Experimental results demonstrate the superior efficiency and solution quality of the HBA algorithm.
Strategy-based equilibrium traffic assignment (SETA) problems define travel choice broadly as a strategy rather than a simple path. Travelers navigating through a network based on a strategy end up following a hyperpath. SETA is well suited to represent a rich set of travel choices that take place en route at nodes, such as transit passengers' transfer decisions, truckers' bidding decisions, and taxi drivers' reposition decisions. This paper recognizes and highlights the commonalities among classical and emerging SETA problems and proposes to unify them within the same modeling framework, built on the concept of a hypergraph. A generic hyperbush algorithm (HBA) is developed by decomposing a hypergraph into destination-based hyperbushes. By constructing hyperbushes and limiting traffic assignments to them, HBA promises to obtain more precise solutions to larger instances of SETA problems at a lower computational cost, both in terms of CPU time and memory consumption. To demonstrate its generality and efficiency, we tailor HBA to solve two SETA problems. The results confirm that HBA consistently outperforms the benchmark algorithms in the literature, including two state-of-the-art hyperpath-based algorithms. To obtain high-quality equilibrium solutions for SETA instances of practical size, HBA runs up to five times faster than the best competitor with a fraction of its memory consumption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据