arxiv: v2 [cs.ma] 6 Mar 2017

Transcription

1 Preditive Positioning and Quality Of Servie Ridesharing for Campus Mobility On Demand Systems Justin Miller and Jonathan P. How arxiv: v2 [s.ma] 6 Mar 2017 Abstrat Autonomous Mobility On Demand (MOD) systems an utilize fleet management strategies in order to provide a high ustomer quality of servie (QoS). Previous works on autonomous MOD systems have developed methods for rebalaning single apaity vehiles, where QoS is maintained through large fleet sizing. This work fouses on MOD systems utilizing a small number of vehiles, suh as those found on a ampus, where additional vehiles annot be introdued as demand for rides inreases. A preditive positioning method is presented for improving ustomer QoS by identifying key loations to position the fleet in order to minimize expeted ustomer wait time. Ridesharing is introdued as a means for improving ustomer QoS as arrival rates inrease. However, with ridesharing pereived QoS is dependent on an often unknown ustomer preferene. To address this hallenge, a ustomer ratings model, whih learns ustomer preferene from a -star rating, is developed and inorporated diretly into a ridesharing algorithm. The preditive positioning and ridesharing methods are applied to simulation of a real-world ampus MOD system. A ombined preditive positioning and ridesharing approah is shown to redue ustomer servie times by up to 29%. and the ustomer ratings model is shown to provide the best overall MOD fleet management performane over a range of ustomer preferenes. I. INTRODUCTION Mobility On Demand (MOD) systems have the potential to revolutionize transportation systems in urban settings by providing ommuters aess to vehiles without requiring private ownership. In suh systems, a fleet of shared vehiles ontinually servies multiple ustomers by transporting them from their requested on demand pikup loation to their desired destination. It is estimated that by 200, as muh as 26% of all global miles traveled will be from ustomers using shared vehiles [1]. A fundamental hallenge for MOD systems is providing a high ustomer quality of servie (QoS) in order to minimize any drawbaks that ustomers may experiene by relying on the shared resoures. There are many fators that an affet a ustomer s QoS suh as ost, omfort, safety and onveniene [2], many of whih an be improved through the use of autonomous MOD systems omposed of self-driving vehiles []. Several autonomous MOD fleet management strategies have been introdued as a means of improving QoS. These approahes attempt to find a rebalaning poliy that redistributes vehiles within the system based on ustomer demand using either a fluid model approah [], a Markov transition model approah [], a queueing-theoretial model approah [6], or a model preditive ontrol approah [7]. The approahes Laboratory of Information and Deision Systems, Massahusetts Institute of Tehnology, 77 Massahusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA, USA {justinm, jhow}@mit.edu (a) MIT MOD fleet (b) app Fig. 1: (a) A fleet of three eletri shuttles operate as MOD vehiles on MIT ampus. (b) MIT MOD ustomers have the ability to provide app-based feedbak in the form of a -star rating. were developed to operate on ity-wide sales and assume that an appropriately large fleet of autonomous vehiles is available, an assumption that does not yet reflet the urrent state of real-world autonomous MOD systems. In pratie, autonomous MOD systems are being deployed with limited sized fleets [8] [10]. This work is further motivated by our own MOD system operating on MIT ampus, where autonomous fleet management strategies are applied to a fleet of only three human-driven vehiles, shown in Figure 1a. Previous rebalaning methods do not sale well when applied to suh small fleets. For example, the poliies are designed to redistribute multiple exess vehiles to relatively few network arrival loations. The methods breakdown when the reverse is true and fleet sizes are relatively small ompared to the number of network loations suh that there generally aren t enough vehiles to over all arrival loations. This work seeks to address this hallenge by instead identifying key loations in the MOD system whih minimize expeted ustomer wait times regardless of fleet size. Additionally, those previous works only onsider the use of single apaity vehiles and do not address the benefits and hallenges of utilizing ridesharing. In ridesharing, multiple ustomers may share a ride in an MOD vehile at the same time. Newly arrived passengers an be piked up before onboard passengers have been dropped off, allowing for more ustomers to be servied with fewer vehiles. However, the redued wait time for requested passengers omes at the expense of inreased ride time of onboard passengers. With ridesharing, pereived QoS beomes dependent on ustomer preferene (i.e. how muh ustomers prefer one servie metri over another). A large body of work has studied

2 a form of ridesharing known as the Dial-A-Ride Problem (DARP), whih is a speialization of the Vehile Routing Problem formulated speifially for the transportation of ustomers. DARP problem formulations typially take either the form of an integer program or a sheduling problem. Integer program formulations enode eah ustomer QoS metri as a deision variable and use heuristi methods suh as geneti algorithms [11], simulated annealing [12], and tabu searh [1] to minimize an objetive, suh as a ost funtion omposed of a weighted sum of the metris. Sheduling problem formulations enumerate the possible ways of inserting new passengers into vehile shedules, and enode ustomer QoS metris as feasibility onstraints [1] [16]. The main hallenge with all of these approahes is that the weights or onstraint thresholds that define ustomer preferene may be hosen inorretly and even the struture that enodes the QoS metris ould be wrong. In general determining ustomer preferene an be diffiult. However, many MOD systems suh as Uber, Lyft, and the MIT MOD system are able to query passengers for feedbak in the form of a -star rating using a ride request app, as shown in Figure 1b. This work takes advantage of this available information through a ridesharing algorithm whih does not enode ustomer preferene diretly, but rather utilizes a learned ustomer ratings model when solving the DARP sheduling problem. The ontributions of this work are: 1) a preditive positioning approah that minimizes expeted ustomer wait time in MOD networks with fewer vehiles than ustomer arrival loations; 2) a ustomer rating model whih learns from - star rating feedbak and serves as a ustomer QoS-foused ost funtion; and ) a shedule-based ridesharing framework that aommodates ustomer QoS metris without the need for enoding ustomer preferene onstraints. II. PROBLEM FORMULATION 1) Customer Arrival Model: An MOD network is modeled as a direted network graph denoted by G = (N, L), where N = {n 1,..., n Nn } is a set of N n nodes, and L = {l 1,..., l Nl } is a set of N l direted link edges eah taking the form of an ordered pair of neighbor nodes l = (n i, n j ) N 2. A route r(n i, n j ) is defined as a sequene of direted links L r L whih orresponds to a unique minimum-travel-time path between a pair of nodes (n i, n j ). Customers are assumed to arrive at nodes in the network graph aording to a Poisson proess with arrival rate parameter λ n. In many MOD systems, ustomer arrival rates will be time-varying and may feature large flutuations on short-time sales. In this work, a disretetime approximation is used where Poisson arrival rates are stati for the operating duration, with short-term flutuations averaged out aross the time period. 2) Ridesharing: Upon arrival, ustomers send ride requests onsisting of a pikup node p N and a drop off node e N. Let C of size N be the set of ustomers who have requested rides, let O of size N o = 2N be the set of requested ustomer pikup and drop off nodes, and let V of size N v be the set of vehiles in the MOD fleet. Vehile v will servie a subset of the ustomers C v C by visiting their pikup and drop off nodes. All ustomer nodes are inserted into a shedule s v = {s 1,... s No }, s i {, N }, whih the vehile traverses in order using a sequene of routes. Let Q be the maximum apaity of eah vehile. The ridesharing problem is that of finding both the ustomer to vehile assignments as well as the vehile shedules suh that the ost of sheduling all ustomers is minimized. A four-index ILP formulation for the DARP is proposed as an extension of the models presented in [17], with emphasis plaed on the ordering of ustomers within shedules. The deision variables x v ij {0, 1} are equal to 1 if vehile v is assigned ustomer, with p and e respetively sequened at s i and s j ; and zero otherwise. The objetive of the ridesharing problem formulation is to minimize the total ustomer QoS ost, that is, argmin x v ij s.t. v V N o N o N o gijx v v ij (1) v V C i=1 j=1 N o N o i=1 j=1 x v ij = 1 C (2) i=1 j=1 i x v ij = 0 v V, C () x v ij = 1 v V, i, j {1,..., N o } () C k N o C i=1 j=k+1 x v ij Q v V, k {1,..., N o } x v ij {0, 1} v V, C, i, j {1,..., N o }, where (2) enfores that all ustomers are assigned, () enfores that a ustomer is piked up before being dropped off, () enfores that only one ustomer an oupy a given shedule position, and () enfores that the apaity of the vehile is not exeeded. The ost, further desribed in Setion III-B.2, is hosen to be a funtion of the QoS metris m that a ustomer experienes, that is gij v = g(mvij ) where the metris themselves are a funtion of the ustomer s position in a vehile s shedule. ) QoS Metris: Customer QoS is quantified using a set of transportation metris, similar to those in [2]. First, ustomer requests are either aepted by the MOD system, in whih ase the ustomers will be assigned to a vehile and given a ride, or rejeted by the system and the ustomers will walk. Let 1 rej be a rejetion indiator variable whih takes value 1 if the ustomer is rejeted and 0 otherwise. The remaining ustomer QoS metris are: ride time t ride, wait time t wait, servie time t servie, ratio of ride time to diret time t ratio, exess ride time t exess ride, maximum number of stops while user is onboard N stops, the notifiation time t notify, the total traveled distane while onboard d traveled, the time it would have taken the ustomer to walk, t walk, and servie time in exess of walk time t exess walk. Let m R 11 be the QoS metris for ustomer, that is m = {1 rej, t ride, t wait, t servie, t ratio exess ride, t, N stops, ()

3 Algorithm 1: Preditive Positioning 1 Input: ustomer node arrival rates {λ 1,... λ Nn } 2 Output: vehile loations k enumerate vehile plaement options K enumerate possible arrival loations A for a A do 6 for k K do 7 w k,a omputetotalwaittime(k, a) 8 p a omputeprobability(a) 9 k = argmin w k,a p a k K a A 10 return k, d traveled, t walk exess walk, t }. Evaluation of these metris is further detailed in Appendix A. t notify III. APPROACH This setion present two new approahes for utilizing and solving the ridesharing problem, (1) to (), in order to improve ustomer servie under different operating regimes. The first approah manages vehiles in the absene of ride requests by using a preditive positioning algorithm, while the seond approah manages vehiles to aommodate ride requests using a ridesharing algorithm. Additionally, two QoS foused ost funtions are presented, a traditional weighted ost funtion, and a ustomer rating model whih learns ustomer QoS preferene from ustomer rating feedbak. A. Preditive Positioning The preditive positioning algorithm uses known ustomer arrival rates {λ 1,... λ Nn } to find the key preditive nodes within the network graph to plae unassigned vehiles suh that the expeted wait time for arriving ustomers is minimized. A speial form of the ridesharing problem, (1) to (), is solved for a sequene of N a predited ustomer arrivals, where 1) vehiles are only assigned to at most one predited ustomer (Q = 1); 2) the number of onsidered ustomers is set to be the number of vehiles (N a = N v ); and ) the ost is set to be the ustomer wait time. Let the vetor k {0, 1,..., N v } Nn denote the number of vehiles loated at eah node and a {0, 1,..., N a } Nn be the number of ustomer arrivals on eah node. K = {k N n i=1 k i = N v } is the set of all possible vehile plaement options, and A = {a N n i=1 a i = N a } is the set of all ombinations of possible arrivals. The preditive node loations k for whih to plae vehiles is determined using Algorithm 1. The wait time ost w k,a in Line 7 is determined by using a greedy solution to the ridesharing problem. The wait times are assumed to be dependent only on the struture of the network graph, and therefore are omputed and stored offline. To handle the ases where some vehiles are serving ustomers while others need to be preditively positioned, wait times are omputed for all numbers of free vehiles from 1 to N v. The probability of a set of arrivals p a in Line 8 is determined using deomposition of the total network arrival Algorithm 2: Ridesharing 1 Input: request {p, e }, previous ustomer alloations {C 1,... C Nv }, shedules {s 1,..., s Nv } 2 Output: shedule for assigned vehile s v for v = 1 : N v do Ĉ v {, C v } Ŝ v enumerateinsertions(s v, p, e ) 6 s v = argmin g(h(ŝ v, i, j )) ŝ v Ŝv Ĉv 7 M v omputenewmetris(s v) 8 M v omputebaselinemetris(s v ) 9 M N v+1 omputerejetionmetris(p, e ) 10 v assigntolowestbid({m, M } 1:Nv, M N v+1 ) 11 s v s v 12 return s v Poisson proess. Given that an arrival ours, the probability of that arrival ourring at a node n i is given by P (a i = 1 N a = 1) = λn i Λ. The probability of a set of arrivals ourring aording to a follows a multinomial distribution, ( ) a1 ( ) ann N a! λ1 λnn P (a) =. (6) a 1!... a Nn! Λ Λ Arrival probabilities are omputed online whenever ustomer arrival rates hange. B. Ridesharing 1) Ridesharing Algorithm: The ridesharing algorithm uses an insertion method as a heuristi solution to the ridesharing problem. Algorithm 2 presents the method for assigning a new ustomer request to a vehile suh that the total QoS ost to the system is minimized. The algorithm is exeuted online whenever a new ustomer ride request is submitted. Line temporarily assigns the new ustomer to eah vehile generating a temporary ustomer alloation Ĉv. Line enumerates all feasible ways of inserting the request into the shedule, where Ŝv is the set of all feasible shedules ŝ v, and where feasibility is met by ensuring that p is inserted before e and that vehile apaity is not exeeded. Lines 6 and 7 find the best feasible shedule s v and orresponding new ustomer QoS metris M v for eah vehile, where M v = {m Ĉv}. For omparison, Line 8 omputes the original ustomer QoS metris M v for eah vehile, where M v = {m C v }. Rather than imposing onstraints on ustomer QoS metris, the algorithm uses a virtual rejetion vehile, v = N v + 1 to make bids that onsider the ase where the ustomer is not servied by the MOD system. Line 9 omputes the rejetion vehile ustomer metris M N = v+1 mrejeted. While seemingly ounter-intuitive, rejetions are in fat important for improving ustomer QoS. For example, if a ustomer s wait time is signifiantly longer than the time it would take for them to walk, then they may prefer to be rejeted rather than to wait to use the servie. In this work, rejeted ustomers are prevented from making additional requests, although this

4 ould be adapted to allow ustomers to resubmit with QoS relaxations. Line 10 finds the ombination of baseline and new metris that inludes all ustomers and has the lowest overall ustomer QoS ost, and then returns the vehile v that ontains. If v is the rejetion vehile, then the ustomer is rejeted, otherwise the shedule for v is updated to aommodate the request. The primary benefit of the ridesharing algorithm is the ability to evaluate ustomer QoS without having to enode the ustomer preferene struture into the algorithm. For example, other methods [1] [16] enode feasibility onstraints on ustomer metris suh as wait time or ride time, where ustomers are rejeted if these are not met. Instead, a more general approah is taken in Algorithm 2 where a ompeting bid is made to rejet a ustomer, and the rejetion is made only when the overall QoS of the system would be improved by doing so. This approah opens the door for a ratings based ost funtion where bids are made without onstraining the ustomer metris diretly. 2) Ridesharing Cost Funtions: Two ridesharing ost funtions are presented whih evaluate the ustomer QoS ost from a set of ustomer ride metris. First, a ost funtion omposed of a linear weighted ombination of the ustomer metris is proposed as m g(m ) = i=2 w rej i 1rej m,i + w apt (1 1 rej )m,i, (7) where w rej i and w apt i are weights for metri i that are used to allow for differentiating between rejeted and servied ustomers. For example, a servie time foused ost funtion would be g(m ) = 1 rej t walk + (1 1 rej )t servie, where the ost is the servie time if the ustomer reeives a ride and the walk time if they are rejeted. This form of ost funtion requires that the weights be properly hosen to reflet ustomer preferene, and an result in poor ustomer QoS if the weights are wrongly hosen. To overome the need to hoose weights, a seond ratings based ost funtion is presented whih learns and uses ustomer preferene through feedbak from -star ratings. The rating model utilizes a random forest of lassifiation deision trees, based on the work of [18]. Random forest algorithms tend to prevent overfitting and have been demonstrated to perform well empirially [19]. To train the random forest model, a dataset D from N D ustomers is olleted in the form of -star ratings Y train = {y 1,..., y ND } and a ride metris feature vetor X train = {m 1,..., m ND } suh that Y train = RF (X train ) where RF (X) is the trained random forest. The trained random forest then serves as the ridesharing ost funtion suh that g(m ) = RF (m ) where the minus sign is inluded to maximize ustomer rating. It is assumed that a ustomer s -star rating is given purely to reflet their ride metris and not fators suh as driver interations whih are not neessary for autonomous MOD systems. i Fig. 2: Pedestrian traffi network on MIT ampus with overlaid pedestrian trajetories. The network graph is omposed of 27 nodes, 106 direted links, and 106 preomputed routes. IV. EXPERIMENTS The preditive positioning and ridesharing methods are tested using simulation of the MIT MOD system. Speially, there are two motivating test ases: 1) evaluating how servie times for ustomers are affeted under different fleet management strategies as ustomer arrival rates grow; and 2) evaluating how ustomer QoS is affeted by various ridesharing strategies operating under a range of unknown ustomer preferene models. The MIT MOD system is used to provide simulation parameters that reflet a realisti operating environment for vehiles and ustomers. A. Simulation Setup Pedestrians and vehiles operate within a network graph for the MIT ampus. The network graph, shown in Figure 2, is generated using pedestrian trajetory data olleted from sensors onboard the MOD vehiles following the method presented in [20]. A two hour time period is simulated; during whih time a subset of 10 randomly hosen nodes are assigned non-zero pedestrian arrival rates in order to reflet that not every ampus loation experienes arrivals at all times. Customer arrival rates are stati for the time period and take values between 0 and 0. ped/min at eah node. There are vehiles in the MIT MOD system eah with a maximum apaity of passengers. Vehiles travel between nodes aording to the shedule generated by the ridesharing algorithm. A vehile piks up its assigned ustomers upon reahing a sheduled node. If a vehile s shedule is empty, the vehile will travel to nodes presribed by the preditive positioning algorithm. Vehile link speeds are either 11m/s for links orresponding ity streets or m/s for ampus pathways. Preditive Positioning The preditive positioning algorithm finds key preditive node positions to plae unalloated MOD vehiles based on ustomer arrival rate parameters. Figure shows the preditive nodes hosen for either 1, 2, or unalloated vehiles for a partiular set of arrival rates. The preditive nodes take into

5 Fig. : Relative ustomer arrival rates and omputed preditive nodes. The numbered preditive nodes illustrate where unassigned MOD vehiles should be loated to minimize the expeted wait time for ustomers. The radius of the irles indiates the relative magnitudes of the node arrival rates. The numbers indiate the loations to plae either 1, 2, or vehiles depending on the urrent number of unalloated vehiles. aount both the probability of the arrivals ourring and the vehiles travel time to reah eah node. If only a single vehile is unalloated, it will tend to be positioned entrally within the network, but skewed towards large arrival rates. When more vehiles are unalloated, the preditive nodes are further spread out for better overage. The performane of the preditive positioning algorithm is evaluated through omparison against a baseline unmanaged MOD strategy, where vehiles respond to pikup requests but are not repositioned after dropping off ustomers. The two methods are first ompared without the use of ridesharing (vehile apaities are 1), with assignments evaluated using a minimum servie time ost funtion. Figure shows that preditive positioning is able to redue ustomer servie times. When arrival rates are lower than 0. ped/min per vehile, there is often time between arrivals for vehiles to reposition to the preditive nodes and servie times an be redued by up to 20%. As arrival rates inrease, however, the benefits of preditive positioning are redued as vehiles are ontinually alloated to requests. Under high arrival rates, it would be desirable to add more vehiles to shift to the lower portion of the urve. However, with a fixed-sized fleet, that option is not available so ridesharing is used as an alternative. B. Ridesharing The performane of the ridesharing algorithm is evaluated by omparing the single apaity preditive positioning and unmanaged MOD methods with ridesharing versions where the maximum vehile apaity is inreased to. The ridesharing algorithm is applied using a minimum servie time ost funtion. Figure also shows that ridesharing redues ustomer servie times. When arrival rates are lower than 0. ped/min per vehile, the ridesharing methods perform similarly to their single apaity ounterparts sine urrent ustomers an be servied before new ustomers arrive. But Fig. : Servie times for unmanaged and preditive positioning methods, with and without ridesharing, over a range of ustomer arrival rates. The figure shows that preditive positioning redues servie times when arrival rates are low and ridesharing redues servie times when arrival rates are high. The servie times are normalized by the diret time so as not to penalize servie times for ustomers with longer routes. Lower servie times are better. The arrival rates are normalized by the number of vehiles. The mean and standard deviation from 100 iterations are shown. at higher arrival rates, the ridesharing algorithm begins to utilize the exess vehile apaity and new ustomers are inserted into vehile shedules before previous ustomers have finished their ride. Through the use of a ombined preditive positioning and ridesharing approah, the MOD system is able ahieve a better ustomer QoS aross all arrival rates, resulting in as muh as a 29% redution in servie time ompared to the single apaity unmanged MOD strategy. C. Customer Preferene In the previous analysis, the ustomer preferene was assumed to be foused on servie time. However, this assumption an be wrong and ustomers may give poor ratings if the the true ustomer preferene lies elsewhere in other QoS metris. To evaluate the rating performane of an MOD system, a simulated rating model is used to assign a -star ratings to ustomers based on a set of ustomer preferene weights. The details of the simulated rating model are provided in Appendix B, whih also speifies how ustomer preferene is enoded using weight onentration parameters. Six ustomer preferene modes are analyzed, where the weight onentration parameters are 90% skewed towards either wait time, ride time, servie time, the number of stops while onboard, ride distane, or a ombined weight between servie time and ride distane. Five fleet management strategies are onsidered. First, a minimum vehile distane strategy is onsidered, where assignments are not made based on ustomer ratings but rather based on the traditional minimum vehile travel distane metri whih would minimize fuel onsumption. Next, three foused strategies based on ride time, servie time, and wait time are inluded, where eah strategy is given aess to the underlying ground truth ratings funtion but hooses rating weights aording to its fous. Finally, the presented random

6 TABLE I: MOD fleet management performane as measured by average ustomer rating. Customer Preferene Strategy Wait Ride Servie # Stops Distane Combined Average Distane Ride Time Servie Time Wait Time s forest ratings model strategy is inluded where the ground truth ratings funtion is not available but rather ustomer preferene is learned from -star ustomer feedbak ratings. The random forest model is implemented using [21], whih is trained separately under eah ustomer preferene mode for 10 runs. To further test the ratings model, all ride distane metris are removed from the random forest feature vetor in order to see if performane an be learned using only non-orresponding, but orrelated metris. The arrival rate is fixed at 0. ped/min per vehile so that the MOD fleet is operating under the ridesharing regime. Figure shows how the performane, in terms of average reeived rating, for eah strategy depends on the underlying ustomer preferenes. Table I summarizes the average ustomer rating over all 20 iterations. The results show that wait time, ride time, and servie time eah perform best when the ustomer preferene mode mathes. Additionally, the ride time metri performs best under the exess ride distane and ombined ustomer preferene modes beause ride distane and ride time are orrelated. However, eah of the foused fleet management strategies performs relatively poorly under at least one ustomer preferene mode, and the minimum distane strategy always performs poorly beause ustomer preferene is not onsidered. In ontrast, the ratings model demonstrates robust performane aross all ustomer preferene modes. The ratings model is within 0.% of the foused strategies under their respetive modes, demonstrating that it was able to learn whih ustomer metris were important under eah mode. The exess ride distane mode illustrates how the ratings model is able to learn ustomer preferene using elements in its feature vetor that are only orrelated with the ustomer preferene metri and not inluded diretly. Finally, when onsidering the average performane over all ustomer preferene modes, the ratings model performed best. V. CONCLUSION This work demonstrated that preditive positioning and ridesharing an be utilized in an MOD system in order to improve ustomer QoS. A preditive positioning algorithm was presented whih uses ustomer arrival rate information to position vehiles at key nodes in the MOD network graph whih minimize the expeted ustomer wait time. In a simulated ampus setting, the preditive positioning method was shown to redue ustomer servie times by as muh as 20% when ustomer arrival rates are low. To improve QoS as arrival rates inrease, a ridesharing approah was presented whih utilizes a ustomer QoS based ost funtion (a) Wait Time () Servie Time (e) Exess Ride Distane (b) Ride Time (d) Number of Stops (f) Combined Fig. : Average ustomer rating for several fleet management strategies under ustomer preferenes that are skewed towards either (a) wait time, (b) ride time, () servie time, (d) the number of stops while onboard, (e) the exess ride distane between the reeived ride and a diret ride, or (f) a ombined skew between servie time and exess ride distane. The figures show that the performane of eah strategy is dependent on the underlying ustomer preferene, with the exeption of the ratings strategy whih performs well in all ases. Eah figure shows the results of 20 runs. Performane is measured by the average ustomer rating where higher ratings are better. A ombined preditive positioning and ridesharing approah was shown to redue ustomer servie times by as muh as 29%. A ustomer ratings model was introdued as a means for learning ustomer preferene through feedbak in the form of a -star rating. The ustomer ratings model is shown to provide the best overall MOD fleet management performane over a range of ustomer preferenes. The preditive positioning and ridesharing methods whih were evaluated for the ampus setting ould also be applied to larger networks. To improve the salability of Algorithm 1, preditive node loations ould represent larger regions within an MOD servie area, where ustomer wait times inlude both the travel time between regions and the expeted travel time within a region. The ridesharing method an be applied to larger fleets by parallelizing the sheduling omputations

7 for eah vehile aross multiple mahines whih bid to a entralized mahine for the ustomer alloations. Future work will apply these methods to the physial MIT MOD system. Methods for learning and prediting ustomer arrival rate trends will be studied so that vehiles an be preditively positioned to math real time demand. Additionally, ratings and servie metris from atual ustomers will be used to improve and evaluate rating models based on random forest and other mahine learning tehniques. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Researh supported by the Ford Motor Company through the Ford-MIT Alliane. REFERENCES [1] Morgan StanleyVoie: Shared Mobility On The Road Of The Future, Forbes, [2] J. Paquette, J.-F. Cordeau, and G. Laporte, Quality of servie in diala-ride operations, Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 6, no., pp , May [] M. Pavone, Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems for Future Urban Mobility, in Autonomes Fahren, M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, and H. Winner, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 201, pp [] M. Pavone, S. L. Smith, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, Roboti load balaning for mobility-on-demand systems, The International Journal of Robotis Researh, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 89 8, June [] M. Volkov, J. Aslam, and D. Rus, Markov-based redistribution poliy model for future urban mobility networks, in th International IEEE Conferene on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Sept. 2012, pp [6] R. Zhang and M. Pavone, Control of roboti mobility-on-demand systems: A queueing-theoretial perspetive, The International Journal of Robotis Researh, vol., no. 1-, pp , [7] R. Zhang, F. Rossi, and M. Pavone, Model preditive ontrol of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems, in 2016 IEEE International Conferene on Robotis and Automation (ICRA), May 2016, pp [8] S. Abuelsamid, Singapore, Delphi and nutonomy To Launh Pilot Of Autonomous, On-Demand Car Servie, Forbes, [9] P. E. Ross, Helsinki Tries Self-Driving Buses in Real Traffi, IEEE Spetrum: Tehnology, Engineering, and Siene News, Aug [10] P. Ross, Uber Will Start Driverless Servie in Pittsburgh This Month, IEEE Spetrum: Tehnology, Engineering, and Siene News, Aug [11] R. M. Jorgensen, J. Larsen, and K. B. Bergvinsdottir, Solving the Dial-a-Ride Problem Using Geneti Algorithms, The Journal of the Operational Researh Soiety, vol. 8, no. 10, pp , [12] G. R. Mauri, L. Antonio, and N. Lorena, Customers satisfation in a dial-a-ride problem, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 1, no., pp. 6 1, Fall [1] J. Paquette, J.-F. Cordeau, G. Laporte, and M. M. B. Pasoal, Combining multiriteria analysis and tabu searh for dial-a-ride problems, Transportation Researh Part B: Methodologial, vol. 2, pp. 1 16, June 201. [1] J.-J. Jaw, A. R. Odoni, H. N. Psaraftis, and N. H. M. Wilson, A heuristi algorithm for the multi-vehile advane request dial-aride problem with time windows, Transportation Researh Part B: Methodologial, vol. 20, no., pp. 2 27, June [1] L. Coslovih, R. Pesenti, and W. Ukovih, A two-phase insertion tehnique of unexpeted ustomers for a dynami dial-a-ride problem, European Journal of Operational Researh, vol. 17, no., pp , De [16] D. J. Fagnant and K. M. Kokelman, Dynami Ride-Sharing and Optimal Fleet Sizing for a System of Shared Autonomous Vehiles, Transportation Researh Board 9th Annual Meeting, 201. [17] J.-F. Cordeau and G. Laporte, The dial-a-ride problem: Models and algorithms, Annals of Operations Researh, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29 6, May [18] L. Breiman, Random forests, Mahine Learning, vol., no. 1, pp. 2, Ot [19] R. Caruana and A. Niulesu-Mizil, An empirial omparison of supervised learning algorithms, in Proeedings of the 2rd International Conferene on Mahine Learning, ser. ICML 06. ACM, pp [Online]. Available: [20] J. Miller, A. Hasfura, S.-Y. Liu, and J. P. How, Dynami Arrival Rate Estimation for Campus Mobility on Demand Network Graphs, IEEE/RSJ International Conferene on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). [21] A. Jaiantilal, Randomforest-matlab, p/randomforest-matlab/, 2010.

8 APPENDIX A. Computing Customer Ride Metris This setion provides details on how ustomer metris are evaluated using vehile shedule information. Customer makes a request at the point in time ˆt request and is assigned to v urrently loated at node n v. The pikup p and drop off e nodes for our at respetive nodes s i and s j in the vehile shedule s v. The vehile travels between any adjaent nodes s k and s k+1 in its shedule using route r(s k, s k+1 ). The travel distane and travel time between the nodes are d(s k, s k+1 ) = d l, (8) t(s k, s k+1 ) = l L r(sk,s k+1 ) l L r(sk,s k+1 ) d l u l, (9) where d l and u l are the length and average travel speed of link l, respetively. The metris m vij are omputed as follows: i 1 = t(n v, s 1 ) + t(s k, s k+1 ), (10) ˆt pikup ˆt dropoff k=1 j 1 = t(n v, s 1 ) + t(k k, s k+1 ), (11) k=1 t diret = t(p, e ), (12) d diret = d(p, e ), (1) t walk = t(p, e ), (1) t ride t wait t servie t ratio exess ride N stops t t notify = ˆt dropoff = ˆt pikup = t wait = t ride = t ride j 1 ˆt pikup, (1) ˆt request, (16) + t ride, (17) /t diret, t diret, (18) = k j, (19) = ˆt assigned ˆt request, (20) d traveled = exess walk t d(s k, s k+1 ), (21) k=i = t servie t walk, (22) where ˆt pikup is the point in time is piked up, ˆt dropoff is the point in time is dropped off, t diret is the time it would take to drive diretly from p to e, d diret is the diret route distane between p and e, t walk is the time it would take to walk from p to e, t(n i, n j ) is (9) evaluated with r(n i, n j ) and v l, as the respetive route and speed of the pedestrian instead of a vehile, and ˆt assigned is the point in time when the ridesharing algorithm assigns the ustomer to the vehile. Note, if a ustomer is rejeted (1 rej = 1), then many of the metris do not apply and the ustomer metris are set to be m rejeted = {1 rej, t notify, t walk }. If the ustomer is given a ride, then the metris are m = {1 rej, t ride, t wait, t servie, t ratio exess ride, t, N stops, t notify, d traveled, t walk exess walk, t }. B. Simulated Model This setion presents a simulated rating model, whih is used as ground truth in simulation to assign -star ratings to MOD ustomers. The values and funtional forms are hosen based on an assumed ustomer preferene and are kept hidden from the -star rating model. If a ustomer is rejeted, then they give one of the two lowest ratings based on how long they waited to be notified of their rejetion. A rejeted ustomer s rating is r rejeted = { 2, if t notify t walk 1, otherwise. 0.1 (2) If a ustomer is given a ride, then the rating will be a weighted sum of aggregate ratings based on wait time, ride time, servie time, number of stops, and ride distane omputed as r aepted with = w 1 r wait r wait r ride r servie r stops r distane +w 2 r ride ( = Range = Range = Range +w r servie t walk ( t ride t walk ( t servie t walk t wait t diret t diret t diret = max(1, 6 N stops ( d traveled = Range t diret t diret ) +w r stops ), 0, 1 ), 0, 1 ), 0, 1 d diret d diret, 0, 0. +w r distane, (2) ), where Range(α, β, γ) maps α to the i-th interval of exponentially spaed values between β and γ and assigns the value 6-i as the rating. Range values were hosen to reflet a set of possible expeted ustomer satisfation levels for eah metri. For example, setting the γ value for r distane to 0. reflets that ustomers would give the lowest rating one their journey distane exeeded the nominal distane by a fator of 0.. Exponential spaing is used to ause ratings to drop off more quikly as metris worsen for ustomers. The majority of ustomers follow the same set of weights w, but some ustomers do not. To aommodate this, the weights are drawn from a Dirihlet distribution suh that w Dir(ŵ), where the onentration parameters ŵ represent the nominal weights for the population.