pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17552 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 🧮 math.OC

On-Trip Matching and Pricing for Shared Rides

Yifan Shen , Junlin Chen , Julia Yan , Chiwei Yan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords shared rideson-trip matchingdynamic stochastic matchingpricing optimizationridesharingsparse demandvehicle utilization
0
0 comments X

The pith

On-trip matching in shared rides raises platform profits and efficiency while lowering rider prices, especially in sparse areas.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Shared-ride platforms have struggled outside dense city centers because standard batch matching before departure leaves many potential pairings unrealized. The paper builds a dynamic stochastic model that lets the platform match a rider to another after she has already been sent out alone. Pre-trip batching works well when demand clusters downtown, but on-trip re-matching captures value in dispersed suburbs by balancing future opportunity against immediate trip value. When the matching rules are solved jointly with prices, the platform earns more overall, runs vehicles more efficiently, and can quote lower fares to riders. The largest improvements appear where demand is thin and shared rides have historically been unprofitable.

Core claim

The platform improves outcomes by choosing both pre-trip batch matches on collected requests and on-trip re-matches after a rider is already dispatched. In a stochastic setting with uncertain future arrivals, on-trip decisions allow the platform to exploit additional sharing opportunities that pure pre-trip matching misses, particularly when spatial demand is dispersed. When this two-phase matching policy is embedded in an outer pricing optimization, numerical results on synthetic instances and Chicago data show higher platform profit and efficiency together with lower rider prices, with the gains most pronounced in low-density outskirts.

What carries the argument

Dynamic stochastic matching model that separates pre-trip batch decisions from on-trip re-matching decisions and optimizes both jointly with prices.

If this is right

  • Platform profitability increases when on-trip matching is added to pre-trip decisions.
  • System efficiency rises through higher vehicle utilization and fewer empty miles.
  • Riders pay lower prices while the platform still earns more.
  • Shared-ride service becomes viable in sparse outskirts where batch matching alone fails.
  • Pre-trip matching suffices in dense downtowns but must be supplemented elsewhere.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-time re-matching logic could be added to existing dispatch apps to capture the modeled gains without changing rider behavior assumptions.
  • Pricing can be tuned by local density to encourage participation in on-trip matches.
  • The framework could extend to multi-leg suburban trips or integration with fixed-route transit.
  • Similar dynamic matching under uncertainty may apply to other spatially dispersed on-demand services such as delivery.

Load-bearing premise

Rider requests arrive according to a known stochastic process and riders accept offered on-trip matches at the quoted prices without behavioral response.

What would settle it

Run the Chicago data instances with on-trip matching disabled and check whether platform profit falls and average rider prices rise relative to the full model, especially in the suburban zones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17552 by Chiwei Yan, Julia Yan, Junlin Chen, Yifan Shen.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Although shared rides have the potential to increase vehicle utilization and reduce congestion and emissions, these benefits depend heavily on ridesharing platforms' ability to match riders effectively. As such, shared rides have seen limited success outside of dense urban areas -- the sparse outskirts of greater metropolitan areas remain underserved. In the literature, the dominant matching model involves collecting rider requests in a batch interval and solving a non-bipartite matching problem on the requests. However, this model neglects the ability of a rider to be matched to a future arriving rider even after she is initially dispatched solo; namely, matching is only modeled pre-trip, and the value of on-trip matching is not explicitly accounted for. We develop a dynamic, stochastic matching model, where the platform makes both pre-trip and on-trip matching decisions, and contrast the behavior of each phase of matching. Using both synthetic and real-world data from Chicago, we find that whereas pre-trip matching is well-suited to dense downtown areas with concentrated demand, on-trip matching is critical in sparser outskirts where demand is spatially dispersed, and manages a tradeoff between matching opportunity and value. We also embed the matching model in an outer pricing optimization problem to study the interaction of matching with pricing, and find that the addition of on-trip matching increases profitability and efficiency for the platform and lowers prices for riders. These effects are particularly pronounced in the sparse outskirts, where operating shared rides -- even providing access to any form of transportation -- has historically been most challenging.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a dynamic stochastic matching model for shared rides that explicitly incorporates both pre-trip batch matching and on-trip matching decisions. Using synthetic instances and Chicago trip data, it shows that pre-trip matching suits dense areas while on-trip matching better handles spatially dispersed demand in sparse outskirts by trading off matching opportunity and value. Embedding the model in an outer pricing optimization, the authors report that adding on-trip matching raises platform profitability and efficiency while lowering rider prices, with these benefits most pronounced in low-density regions.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work is significant for operations research on mobility platforms: it fills a gap in the literature by valuing post-dispatch matching opportunities that prior batch-only models ignore. The Chicago data experiments provide practical grounding for the claim that on-trip matching can extend viable shared-ride service to underserved sparse areas. The pricing integration demonstrates a concrete interaction between matching policy and revenue management that could guide platform design. Credit is due for the use of both synthetic and real-world data to contrast the two matching phases.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Dynamic Matching Model): The value-function recursion for on-trip matching is derived under the assumption that the arrival process is known and stationary and that every offered match is accepted with probability 1; this assumption is load-bearing for the opportunity-cost calculations that produce the reported efficiency gains in sparse areas, yet no sensitivity analysis to arrival-rate misspecification or acceptance probability <1 is provided.
  2. [§6] §6 (Pricing Optimization): The numerical results on profit increases and price reductions (Chicago experiments) are obtained by solving the outer optimization with the inner matching model under perfect acceptance; because the manuscript never evaluates the case in which riders strategically reject on-trip offers, the central claim that on-trip matching lowers prices and raises platform profit is not shown to be robust to the weakest modeling assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states results on synthetic and Chicago data but the manuscript would benefit from an explicit table of validation metrics (e.g., out-of-sample matching rates or profit gaps) to make the empirical claims easier to assess.
  2. Notation for the state descriptor in the dynamic program (rider locations, vehicle status, time) could be illustrated with a small numerical example to improve readability for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive evaluation of the paper's contributions. We address each major comment below, committing to revisions that strengthen the robustness discussion while preserving the core modeling framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Dynamic Matching Model): The value-function recursion for on-trip matching is derived under the assumption that the arrival process is known and stationary and that every offered match is accepted with probability 1; this assumption is load-bearing for the opportunity-cost calculations that produce the reported efficiency gains in sparse areas, yet no sensitivity analysis to arrival-rate misspecification or acceptance probability <1 is provided.

    Authors: We agree that the value-function recursion in §4 relies on a known stationary Poisson arrival process and unit acceptance probability; these enable tractable computation of opportunity costs via dynamic programming. This setup is standard in stochastic matching models to isolate the incremental value of on-trip decisions. No sensitivity analysis appeared in the original manuscript. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection to §4 with experiments that perturb arrival rates by ±25% around the estimated values and test acceptance probabilities of 0.8 and 0.9. The results confirm that the reported efficiency advantage of on-trip matching in sparse regions remains qualitatively intact, thereby supporting the robustness of the opportunity-cost calculations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§6] §6 (Pricing Optimization): The numerical results on profit increases and price reductions (Chicago experiments) are obtained by solving the outer optimization with the inner matching model under perfect acceptance; because the manuscript never evaluates the case in which riders strategically reject on-trip offers, the central claim that on-trip matching lowers prices and raises platform profit is not shown to be robust to the weakest modeling assumption.

    Authors: The Chicago pricing results in §6 are indeed generated under the same unit-acceptance assumption used in the inner matching model. Introducing endogenous rider rejection would require an explicit rider-choice model and equilibrium analysis, which lies outside the paper's focus on platform-side matching and pricing decisions. We therefore treat acceptance as controllable via price setting, consistent with standard revenue-management practice. In the revision we will insert a clarifying paragraph in §6 that acknowledges this modeling choice and notes that any reduction in acceptance rates would increase the relative value of on-trip flexibility; a full game-theoretic treatment of strategic rejection is left for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model uses external data and stated assumptions

full rationale

The paper formulates a dynamic stochastic matching model with pre-trip and on-trip decisions, embeds it in an outer pricing optimization, and evaluates using synthetic instances plus external Chicago trip data. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. Arrival processes and acceptance probabilities are treated as modeling assumptions rather than outputs derived from the same quantities. The reported profitability and price effects are obtained by solving the model on held-out or synthetic data, not by renaming or tautologically re-deriving inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only view limits visibility; model likely rests on standard stochastic arrival assumptions and unstated parameters for match-value thresholds.

free parameters (1)
  • match-value threshold
    Decision rule for accepting an on-trip match versus waiting; value not reported in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Rider requests arrive according to a known stochastic process
    Standard assumption in dynamic matching models; invoked to justify the stochastic formulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1158 out tokens · 36125 ms · 2026-05-10T05:40:11.118533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    European Journal of Operational Research 223(2):295--303

    Agatz N, Erera A, Savelsbergh M, Wang X, 2012 Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review. European Journal of Operational Research 223(2):295--303

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    https://gadallon.substack.com/p/pool-is-back, accessed: 2026-01-03

    Allon G, 2022 Pool is Back . https://gadallon.substack.com/p/pool-is-back, accessed: 2026-01-03

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(3):462--467

    Alonso-Mora J, Samaranayake S, Wallar A, Frazzoli E, Rus D, 2017 On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(3):462--467

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Journal of Transport Geography 89:102869

    Aman JJC, Smith-Colin J, 2020 Transit deserts: Equity analysis of public transit accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography 89:102869

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Operations Research 70(4):2349--2383

    Aouad A, Sar ta c \"O , 2022 Dynamic stochastic matching under limited time. Operations Research 70(4):2349--2383

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 48(2):999--1016

    Ashlagi I, Burq M, Dutta C, Jaillet P, Saberi A, Sholley C, 2023 Edge-weighted online windowed matching. Mathematics of Operations Research 48(2):999--1016

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Operations Research 67(3):744--769

    Bimpikis K, Candogan O, Saban D, 2019 Spatial pricing in ride-sharing networks. Operations Research 67(3):744--769

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Geographical Analysis 57:567--577

    Boeing G, 2025 Modeling and analyzing urban networks and amenities with OSMnx . Geographical Analysis 57:567--577

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09924

    Chen J, Yan C, Jiang H, 2025 On the linear programming model for dynamic stochastic matching and its application to pricing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09924

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Web and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, WINE 2020, Beijing, China, December 7--11, 2020, Proceedings 16, 17--30 (Springer)

    Collina N, Immorlica N, Leyton-Brown K, Lucier B, Newman N, 2020 Dynamic weighted matching with heterogeneous arrival and departure rates. Web and Internet Economics: 16th International Conference, WINE 2020, Beijing, China, December 7--11, 2020, Proceedings 16, 17--30 (Springer)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 140:130--150

    Daganzo CF, Ouyang Y, Yang H, 2020 Analysis of ride-sharing with service time and detour guarantees. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 140:130--150

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/07/uberx-share-carpooling-ride-app-cost/661483/, accessed: 2023-07-10

    Desai S, 2022 UberPool is a Zombie . https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/07/uberx-share-carpooling-ride-app-cost/661483/, accessed: 2023-07-10

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Eom M, Toriello A, 2025 Batching and greedy policies: How good are they in dynamic matching? Manufacturing & Service Operations Management

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 86:102461

    Ermagun A, Tilahun N, 2020 Equity of transit accessibility across chicago. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 86:102461

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 126:103061

    Fielbaum A, Bai X, Alonso-Mora J, 2021 On-demand ridesharing with optimized pick-up and drop-off walking locations. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 126:103061

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    European Journal of Operational Research 301(3):956--973

    Fielbaum A, Kucharski R, Cats O, Alonso-Mora J, 2022 How to split the costs and charge the travellers sharing a ride? aligning system’s optimum with users’ equilibrium. European Journal of Operational Research 301(3):956--973

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Available at SSRN 3675050

    Hu M, Wang J, Wen H, Zhang ZJ, 2020 Shared or solo? platform pricing and rider choices in ride-hailing. Available at SSRN 3675050

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    European Journal of Operational Research 295(3):1008--1024

    Jacob J, Roet-Green R, 2021 Ride solo or pool: Designing price-service menus for a ride-sharing platform. European Journal of Operational Research 295(3):1008--1024

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Journal of Public Transportation 16(3):23--39

    Jiao J, Dillivan M, 2013 Transit deserts: The gap between demand and supply. Journal of Public Transportation 16(3):23--39

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Management Science 71(2):1716--1736

    Lobel I, Martin S, 2025 Detours in shared rides. Management Science 71(2):1716--1736

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    https://fortune.com/2025/05/19/lyft-pooled-rides-at-airports-cheaper-trips/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    Lung N, 2025 Lyft revives pooled rides at airports in push for cheaper trips . https://fortune.com/2025/05/19/lyft-pooled-rides-at-airports-cheaper-trips/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Econometrica 70(2):583--601

    Milgrom P, Segal I, 2002 Envelope theorems for arbitrary choice sets. Econometrica 70(2):583--601

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    Operations Research 70(4):2194--2212

    Pavone M, Saberi A, Schiffer M, Tsao MW, 2022 Online hypergraph matching with delays. Operations Research 70(4):2194--2212

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Puterman ML, 2014 Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming (John Wiley & Sons)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(37):13290--13294

    Santi P, Resta G, Szell M, Sobolevsky S, Strogatz SH, Ratti C, 2014 Quantifying the benefits of vehicle pooling with shareability networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(37):13290--13294

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 101:208--232

    Simonetto A, Monteil J, Gambella C, 2019 Real-time city-scale ridesharing via linear assignment problems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 101:208--232

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 82:36--53

    Stiglic M, Agatz N, Savelsbergh M, Gradisar M, 2015 The benefits of meeting points in ride-sharing systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 82:36--53

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 26(5):1945--1961

    Taylor TA, 2024 Shared-ride efficiency of ride-hailing platforms. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 26(5):1945--1961

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    http://tinyurl.com/4aah3fae, accessed: 2024-01-31

    TomTom, 2024 Chicago Traffic Report . http://tinyurl.com/4aah3fae, accessed: 2024-01-31

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uberx-share/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    Uber , 2026 a Introducing UberX Share . https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uberx-share/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    https://www.uber.com/gb/en/ride/uberx-share/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    Uber , 2026 b UberX Share . https://www.uber.com/gb/en/ride/uberx-share/, accessed: 2026-01-03

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 189:103013

    Wang S, Wang X, Yang C, Zhang X, Liu W, 2024 Optimizing OD-based up-front discounting strategies for enroute ridepooling services . Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 189:103013

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Operations Research (forthcoming)

    Yan C, Yan J, Shen Y, 2025 Pricing shared rides. Operations Research (forthcoming)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 67(8):705--724

    Yan C, Zhu H, Korolko N, Woodard D, 2020 Dynamic pricing and matching in ride-hailing platforms. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 67(8):705--724

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 87:102540

    Young M, Farber S, Palm M, 2020 The true cost of sharing: A detour penalty analysis between UberPool and UberX trips in Toronto . Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 87:102540

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Management Science 69(11):6876--6897

    Zhang W, Jacquillat A, Wang K, Wang S, 2023 Routing optimization with vehicle--customer coordination. Management Science 69(11):6876--6897

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    2025 European Control Conference ( ECC ) , 2952--2957

    Zhu P, Ferrari-Trecate G, Geroliminis N, 2025 En Route Path-planning for Partially Occupied Vehicles in Ride-pooling Systems . 2025 European Control Conference ( ECC ) , 2952--2957

    work page 2025