Competitive Ratios for Online Multi-capacity Ridesharing

In multi-capacity ridesharing, multiple requests (e.g., customers, food items, parcels) with different origin and destination pairs travel in one resource. In recent years, online multi-capacity ridesharing services (i.e., where assignments are made online) like Uber-pool, foodpanda, and on-demand shuttles have become hugely popular in transportation, food delivery, logistics and other domains. This is because multi-capacity ridesharing services benefit all parties involved { the customers (due to lower costs), the drivers (due to higher revenues) and the matching platforms (due to higher revenues per vehicle/resource). Most importantly these services can also help reduce carbon emissions (due to fewer vehicles on roads). Online multi-capacity ridesharing is extremely challenging as the underlying matching graph is no longer bipartite (as in the unit-capacity case) but a tripartite graph with resources (e.g., taxis, cars), requests and request groups (combinations of requests that can travel together). The desired matching between resources and request groups is constrained by the edges between requests and request groups in this tripartite graph (i.e., a request can be part of at most one request group in the final assignment). While there have been myopic heuristic approaches employed for solving the online multi-capacity ridesharing problem, they do not provide any guarantees on the solution quality. To that end, this paper presents the first approach with bounds on the competitive ratio for online multi-capacity ridesharing (when resources rejoin the system at their initial location/depot after serving a group of requests).

[1]  Aravind Srinivasan,et al.  Allocation Problems in Ride-sharing Platforms , 2021, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[2]  Patrick Jaillet,et al.  ZAC: A Zone Path Construction Approach for Effective Real-Time Ridesharing , 2019, ICAPS.

[3]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Edge Weighted Online Windowed Matching , 2019, EC.

[4]  Aravind Srinivasan,et al.  Online Resource Allocation with Matching Constraints , 2019, AAMAS.

[5]  Karthik Abinav Sankararaman Sequential Decision Making with Limited Resources , 2019 .

[6]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Maximum Weight Online Matching with Deadlines , 2018, ArXiv.

[7]  Yuhao Zhang,et al.  How to match when all vertices arrive online , 2018, STOC.

[8]  Aravind Srinivasan,et al.  Allocation Problems in Ride-sharing Platforms , 2017, AAAI.

[9]  Euiwoong Lee,et al.  Maximum Matching in the Online Batch-arrival Model , 2017, IPCO.

[10]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Patrick Jaillet,et al.  Online Stochastic Matching: New Algorithms with Better Bounds , 2014, Math. Oper. Res..

[12]  Aranyak Mehta,et al.  Online Matching and Ad Allocation , 2013, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  Randomized Primal-Dual analysis of RANKING for Online BiPartite Matching , 2013, SODA.

[14]  Amin Saberi,et al.  Online stochastic matching: online actions based on offline statistics , 2010, SODA '11.

[15]  Gagan Goel,et al.  Online Vertex-Weighted Bipartite Matching and Single-bid Budgeted Allocations , 2010, SODA.

[16]  Jon Feldman,et al.  Online Ad Assignment with Free Disposal , 2009, WINE.

[17]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching , 1990, STOC '90.

[18]  L. Beineke The Four Color Problem: Assaults and Conquest (Thomas Saaty and Paul Kainen) , 1980 .