Co-utile Ridesharing

Ridesharing has the potential to bring a wealth of benefits both to the actors directly involved in the shared trip (e.g., shared travel costs or access to high-occupancy vehicle facilities) and also to the society in general (e.g., reduced traffic congestion and CO\(_{2}\) emissions). However, even though ridesharing is based on a win-win collaboration and modern mobile communication technologies have significantly eased discovering and managing ride matches, the adoption of ridesharing has paradoxically decreased during the last years. In this respect, recent studies have highlighted how privacy concerns and the lack of trust among peers are crucial issues that hamper the success of ridesharing. In this chapter, we tackle both of these issues by means of (i) a fully decentralized P2P ridesharing management network that avoids centralized ride-matching agencies (and hence private data compilation by such agencies); and (ii) an also decentralized reputation management protocol that brings trust among peers, even when they have not previously interacted. Our proposal rests on co-utility, which ensures that rational (even purely selfish) peers will find no incentives to deviate from the prescribed protocols. We have tested our system by using data gathered from real mobility traces of cabs in the San Francisco Bay area, and according to several metrics that quantify the degree of adoption of ridesharing and the ensuing individual and societal benefits.

[1]  Stephen E. Deering,et al.  Multicast routing in datagram internetworks and extended LANs , 1990, TOCS.

[2]  Donald J Dailey,et al.  Seattle smart traveler: dynamic ridematching on the World Wide Web , 1999 .

[3]  David R. Karger,et al.  Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[4]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay' s reputation system , 2002, The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce.

[5]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Exploiting network proximity in peer-to-peer overlay networks , 2002 .

[6]  Boi Faltings,et al.  An incentive compatible reputation mechanism , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[7]  C. Morency The ambivalence of ridesharing , 2007 .

[8]  Brian Caulfield,et al.  Estimating the environmental benefits of ride-sharing: A case study of Dublin , 2009 .

[9]  Matthias Grossglauser,et al.  A parsimonious model of mobile partitioned networks with clustering , 2009, 2009 First International Communication Systems and Networks and Workshops.

[10]  R. Buliung,et al.  Catching a ride on the information super-highway: toward an understanding of internet-based carpool formation and use , 2010 .

[11]  Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones,et al.  Leveraging Social Networks to Embed Trust in Rideshare Programs , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future , 2012 .

[13]  Andrew Amey Proposed Methodology for Estimating Rideshare Viability Within an Organization: Application to the MIT Community , 2011 .

[14]  Martin W. P. Savelsbergh,et al.  Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Fernando Ordóñez,et al.  Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions , 2013 .

[16]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  Self-enforcing protocols via co-utile reputation management , 2016, Inf. Sci..

[17]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  Co-utile P2P ridesharing via decentralization and reputation management , 2016 .

[18]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  Co-utility , 2016, Progress in Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  Co-Utility: Self-Enforcing protocols for the mutual benefit of participants , 2017, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..