Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In their recent paper [Phys. Rev. E 79, 031115 (2009)], Ning Jia and Shoufeng Ma used some Markov chain arguments for the analytical description of inflow in the deterministic Nagel-Schreckenberg model with open boundaries. In this context, they considered two different mechanisms of injecting vehicles: the standard injection rule and a popular expanded injection rule. While the results for the first one seem to be correct, simulations show that the inflow formula in case of the expanded injection rule yields only approximate results. Therefore, this comment provides the exact formula also in this case and explains the shortcoming in the derivation of Jia and Ma.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.013101 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!