2. 考研
  3. Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners i

Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners i

admin2018-01-08  10
问题    Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners in Seoul tore down a six-lane highway a few years ago and replaced it with a five-mile-long park, many transportation professionals were surprised to learn that the city’s traffic flow had actually improved, instead of worsening. It was like an inverse of Braess’s paradox.
   Mathematician Dietrich Braess of Ruhr University Bochum in Germany states that in a network in which all the moving entities rationally seek the most efficient route, adding extra capacity can actually reduce the network’s overall efficiency. The Seoul project inverts this dynamic; closing a highway—that is, reducing network capacity—improves the system’s effectiveness.
   Although Braess’s paradox was first identified in the 1960s and is rooted in 1920s economic theory, the concept never gained enough attention in the automobile-oriented U.S. But in the 21st century, economic and environmental problems are bringing new scrutiny to the idea that limiting spaces for cars may move more people more efficiently. A key to this counterintuitive approach to traffic design lies in manipulating the inherent self-interest of all drivers.
   A case in point is "The Price of Anarchy in Transportation Networks," published last September in Physical Review Letters by Michael Gastner, a computer scientist at the Santa Fe Institute, and his colleagues. Using hypothetical and real-world road networks, they explain that drivers seeking the shortest route to a given destination eventually reach what is known as the Nash equilibrium, in which no single driver can do any better by changing his or her strategy unilaterally. The problem is that the Nash equilibrium is less efficient than the equilibrium reached when drivers act unselfishly—that is, when they coordinate their movements to benefit the entire group.
   The "price of anarchy" is a measure of the inefficiency caused by selfish drivers. Analyzing a commute from Harvard Square to Boston Common, the researchers found that the price can be high—selfish drivers typically waste 30 percent more time than they would under "socially optimal" conditions.
   The solution hinges on Braess’s paradox, Gastner says. "Selfish drivers can be led to a better solution if you remove some of the network links, in part because closing roads makes it more difficult for individual drivers to choose the best (and most selfish) route."
Judging from the context, what does the underlined word in Paragraph 4 refer to?
选项 A、Selfishly.
B、Assertively.
C、Mistakenly.
D、Slowly.
答案A
解析 此题为词义理解题。单词所在的句子讲到了“纳什均衡”，文中给予它的释义是：司机们都各自寻求到达某一目的地的最短路线，最终就形成了一种所谓的“纳什均衡”，而下一句则指出如果司机能够从整体利益出发协调彼此的行车路径，那么达到的均衡要比“纳什均衡”要好，因此可知纳什均衡中司机们不是以整体利益而是以自身利益为出发点改变方向，因此可知选项A“自私地”符合题意，为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/oUBZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)