Ride-Hailing Networks with Strategic Drivers: The Impact of Platform Control Capabilities on Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: Motivated by ride-hailing platforms such as Uber, Lyft and Didi, we study the problem of matching riders with self-interested drivers over a spatial network. We focus on the performance impact of two operational platform controls—demand-side admission control and supply-side repositioning control—considering the interplay with two practically important challenges: (i) spatial demand imbalances prevail for extended periods of time; and (ii) self-interested drivers strategically decide whether to join the network, and, if so, whether to reposition when not serving riders. Methodology/results: We develop and analyze the steady-state behavior of a novel game-theoretic fluid model of a two-location, four-route loss network. First, we fully characterize and compare the steady-state system equilibria under three control regimes, from minimal control to centralized control. Second, we provide insights on how and why platform control impacts equilibrium performance, notably with new findings on the role of admission control: the platform may find it optimal to strategically reject demand at the low-demand location even if drivers are in excess supply, to induce repositioning to the high-demand location. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for this policy. Third, we derive upper bounds on the platform’s and drivers’ benefits caused by increased platform control; these are more significant under moderate capacity and significant cross-location demand imbalance. Managerial implications: Our results contribute important guidelines on the optimal operations of ride-hailing networks. Our model can also inform the design of driver compensation structures that support more centralized network control. Supplemental Material: The e-companion and Supplemental Material are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1221 .
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".