MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411146462 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2024.0637

Learning-Based Online Optimization for Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Fleet Control

2025· article· en· W4411146462 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceControl (management)Operations researchFleet managementMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous mobility-on-demand systems are a viable alternative to mitigate many transportation-related externalities in cities, such as rising vehicle volumes in urban areas and transportation-related pollution. However, the success of these systems heavily depends on efficient and effective fleet control strategies. In this context, we study online control algorithms for autonomous mobility-on-demand systems and develop a novel hybrid combinatorial optimization-enriched machine learning pipeline which learns online dispatching and rebalancing policies from optimal full-information solutions. We test our hybrid pipeline on large-scale real-world scenarios with different vehicle fleet sizes and various request densities. We show that our pipeline outperforms greedy and model-predictive control approaches with respect to various key performance indicators (KPIs), for example, by up to 17.1% and on average by 6.3% in terms of realized profit, and on average by 4.7% in terms of satisfied customers. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms–Discrete. Funding: This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Grant 449261765]. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2024.0637 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2024.0637 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it