Optimal matching for ridesharing systems with endogenous and flexible user participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of ridesharing systems is intricately entwined with user participation. To characterize such interplay, we adopt a repeated multi-player, non-cooperative game approach to model a ridesharing platform and its users’ decision-making. Users reveal to the platform their participation preferences over being only riders, only drivers, flexible users, and opt-out based on the expected utilities of each mode. The platform optimally matches users with different itineraries and participation preferences to maximize social welfare. We analytically establish the existence and uniqueness of equilibria and design an iterative algorithm for the solution, for which convergence is guaranteed under mild conditions. A case study is conducted with real travel demand data in Chicago. The results highlight the effect of users’ flexibility regarding mode preferences on system performance (i.e., the average utility of users and the percentage of successful matches). A sensitivity analysis on the level of subsidy and the distribution of utility between matched riders and drivers shows that uneven distributions of utility may lead to a higher percentage of successful matches. Additional insights are provided on the effect of a user’s origin and destination locations on their role choice and likelihood to be matched.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".