Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1906.07567

On the needs for MaaS platforms to handle competition in ridesharing mobility

Abstract

Ridesharing has been emerging as a new type of mobility. However, the early promises of ridesharing for alleviating congestion in cities may be undermined by a number of challenges, including the growing number of proposed services and the subsequent increasing number of vehicles, as a natural consequence of competition. In this work, we present optimization-based approaches to model cooperation and competition between multiple ridesharing companies, in a real-time on-demand setting. A recent trend relies on solving the integrated combination of Dial-A-Ride Problems (DARP), which compute the cost of assigning incoming requests to vehicle routes, plus Linear Assignment Problems (LAP), which assign vehicles to requests. While the DARPs, are solved at the level of the vehicles of each company, we introduce cooperative and competitive approaches to solve the LAP. The cooperative model, which could make use of Mobility as a Service platforms, is shown to solve the LAP to optimality following closely results from the literature, and limiting the amount of information the companies are required to share. We investigate how a realistic model of competition deviates from this optimality and provide worst case bounds. We evaluate these models with respect to a centralized model on one-week instances of the New York City taxi dataset. Model variants coping with noise in the travel time estimations, bias in the assignment costs, and preferences in the competitive case are also presented and validated. The computational results suggest that cooperation among ridesharing companies can be conducted in such a way to limit the degradation of the level of service with respect to a centralized model. Finally, we argue that the competition can lower the quality of the ridesharing service, especially in the case customer preferences are accommodated.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Venktesh Pandey, Julien Monteil, Claudio Gambella, Andrea Simonetto. 2019-06-15. On the needs for MaaS platforms to handle competition in ridesharing mobility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.09.021

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.

cs.CY

Can LLMs Perform Technical Comprehension of Computer Architecture Papers?

Can large language models perform technical comprehension of computer architecture papers--not summarization, but structured critique that names the core mechanism, surfaces buried assumptions, and connects a contribution beyond its own scope? We study Gauntlet, an open-source pipeline that analyzes a paper through five independent expert-persona reviewers and an adversarial synthesis stage. On 20 ISCA 2025 and HPCA 2026 papers, 10 researchers each wrote their own analyses and then judged, for papers other than their own, the human analysis against Gauntlet's. Across the 20 comparisons evaluators preferred Gauntlet in 15 (human in 4, one tie); its advantage is significant on per-analyst totals (two-sided Wilcoxon, p < 0.001) and largest on Critical Rigor. Where humans win, it is on trust and usefulness rather than depth: a confident wrong claim, a mechanism described but not taught, or unprioritized breadth. A 98-paper automated ablation shows the gain comes from the multi-agent structure: the pipeline beats the same model run as a single rich-persona agent on 96% of papers. We release all analyses, scores, and the rubric as a community resource.

cs.CY

Beyond PUE: A Local Impact Audit Framework for Data Center Environmental Accountability

Standard data center sustainability metrics, including Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE), and Carbon Usage Effectiveness (CUE), measure a facility's resource use and emissions intensity, normalized to IT energy use, without directly representing local resource scarcity, infrastructure capacity, or social footprint. This gap has become politically consequential. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, local opposition delayed or canceled roughly $130 billion in projects across the United States, driven overwhelmingly by recurring concerns over water use, power demand, infrastructure capacity, and transparency rather than internal efficiency, matching the total for all of 2025 [11]. We propose a five-category local impact audit framework covering efficiency, water stewardship, carbon and renewables, regulatory compliance, and local disclosure. The framework is designed for recurring quarterly assessment and independent verification against public records. We illustrate its application using publicly available data from three Illinois facilities that are currently at the center of local policy disputes, and we examine the data-access barriers that constrain independent verification. We position this framework as both a research contribution and a practical instrument for county-level policymakers evaluating data center permitting and moratorium decisions.

cs.CY