Online Repositioning in Bike Sharing Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to increased traffic congestion and carbon emissions, Bike Sharing Systems (BSSs) are adopted in various cities for short distance travels, specifically for last mile transportation. The success of a bike sharing system depends on its ability to have bikes available at the "right" base stations at the "right" times. Typically, carrier vehicles are used to perform repositioning of bikes between stations so as to satisfy customer requests. Owing to the uncertainty in customer demand and day-long repositioning, the problem of having bikes available at the right base stations at the right times is a challenging one. In this paper, we propose a multi-stage stochastic formulation, to consider expected future demand over a set of scenarios to find an efficient repositioning strategy for bike sharing systems. Furthermore, we provide a Lagrangian decomposition approach (that decouples the global problem into routing and repositioning slaves and employs a novel DP approach to efficiently solve routing slave) and a greedy online anticipatory heuristic to solve large scale problems effectively and efficiently. Finally, in our experimental results, we demonstrate significant reduction in lost demand provided by our techniques on real world datasets from two bike sharing companies in comparison to existing benchmark approaches.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it