不同路线规划技术的比较：墨尔本、达卡和哥本哈根道路网的用户比较研究
Comparing Alternative Route Planning Techniques: A Comparative User Study on Melbourne, Dhaka and Copenhagen Road Networks
摘要：
许多现代导航系统和基于地图的服务不仅提供从源位置s到目标位置t的最快路线，而且还向用户提供一些替代路线作为更多选项以供选择。因此，计算替代路径已受到显著的研究关注。然而，目前还不清楚现有的方法产生更好的质量的替代路线，因为这些替代品的质量大多是主观的。出于这一动机，在本文中，我们提出了一个用户的研究进行的道路网络的墨尔本，达卡和哥本哈根，比较质量（由用户感知）的替代路线产生的四个最流行的现有方法，包括谷歌地图提供的路线。我们还提出了一个基于Web的演示系统，可以使用任何支持互联网的设备访问，并允许用户看到的替代路线所产生的四种方法为任何一对选定的源和目标。我们报告了这四种方法获得的平均评级，我们的统计分析表明，没有可信的证据表明这四种方法平均获得不同的评级。我们还讨论了这项用户研究的局限性，并建议读者谨慎解释这些结果，因为某些因素可能会影响参与者的评级。
英文摘要：
Many modern navigation systems and map-based services do not only provide the fastest route from a source location s to a target location t but also provide a few alternative routes to the users as more options to choose from. Consequently, computing alternative paths has received significant research attention. However, it is unclear which of the existing approaches generates alternative routes of better quality because the quality of these alternatives is mostly subjective. Motivated by this, in this paper, we present a user study conducted on the road networks of Melbourne, Dhaka and Copenhagen that compares the quality (as perceived by the users) of the alternative routes generated by four of the most popular existing approaches including the routes provided by Google Maps. We also present a web-based demo system that can be accessed using any internet-enabled device and allows users to see the alternative routes generated by the four approaches for any pair of selected source and target. We report the average ratings received by the four approaches and our statistical analysis shows that there is no credible evidence that the four approaches receive different ratings on average. We also discuss the limitations of this user study and recommend the readers to interpret these results with caution because certain factors may have affected the participants' ratings.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
