Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Eco-Mobility-on-Demand Fleet Control with Ride-Sharing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fuel-minimizing ride-sharing fleet controller cuts fuel per customer by up to 7% in simulation.

desk verdict A useful, well-described simulation study showing fuel-aware ride-sharing assignment can reduce fleet fuel in a calibrated Ann Arbor model, but the headline 7% is probably optimistic until an independent fuel model is used for evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09828 v2 pith:4ZWEZBGC submitted 2019-08-23 stat.AP cs.ROeess.SPmath.OC

Xianan Huang , Boqi Li , Huei Peng , Joshua A. Auld , Vadim O. Sokolov This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APcs.ROeess.SPmath.OC
keywords mobility-on-demandride-sharingfleetcontrolfuelconsumptionoptimizationeco-routingdynamicvehicleroutingemptymileagetrafficsimulationcalibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a shared automated vehicle fleet can save fuel directly by making fleet fuel consumption the objective of trip assignment, rather than treating travel time as the only cost. In a calibrated simulation of evening rush-hour demand in a mid-sized city, the proposed Eco-MOD algorithm assigns 1.2 to 1.3 passengers per vehicle on average and reduces fuel consumed per customer by 1.4% to 7.0% compared with a personal-vehicle baseline, while more than 90% of customers are served within wait-time and delay-time constraints. The paper also shows the failure this fixes: a fleet assigned purely by travel time can increase fuel consumption per customer by up to 13%, because empty rebalancing miles outweigh the benefit of sharing. The result matters because it says ride-sharing's energy benefit is not automatic; it depends on putting fuel cost into the assignment controller.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a shareability-graph decomposition of the ride-sharing problem. Nodes are customers and vehicles; an edge means a virtual vehicle can serve both endpoints without violating wait and delay limits, and feasible serving patterns are cliques. Each clique is solved exactly as a small pickup-and-delivery traveling salesman problem, with fuel consumption as the transitional cost, and the resulting candidate trips are selected by integer linear programming. This turns a hard dynamic vehicle-routing problem into many small optimizations. Around this core sits a rebalancing mechanism that relocates idle vehicles toward the trip-origin distribution with fuel as the relocation cost, and that mechanism is what accounts for the empty vehicle miles that otherwise inflate fuel use.

What would settle it

Re-run the same assignment controller with link travel times that respond to the fleet's own trips at the assumed fleet penetration; if the fuel saving per customer relative to personal vehicles disappears or reverses, the central claim fails. A field alternative is to measure empty-vehicle mileage in an operating ride-sharing fleet: the claim predicts fuel-oriented assignment cuts empty miles enough to undo the 13% penalty that time-only assignment produces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a ride-sharing fleet should be controlled with fuel consumption as the assignment cost, not as an afterthought. When the trip-assignment objective is total fleet fuel and each vehicle carries about 1.2–1.3 assigned customers on average, the simulated fleet uses 1.4% to 7.0% less fuel per customer than the baseline in which every trip is made by a personal vehicle. Under the same calibrated simulation, a travel-time-oriented fleet burns up to 13% more fuel per customer than the baseline because of empty vehicle mileage from rebalancing. The paper further finds that eco-routing adds 5–8% fuel reduction on top of the assignment-level gains, and that all tested configurations serve more than 90% of customers within their travel time constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The headline fuel saving comes from a calibrated simulator in which the ride-sharing fleet is assumed to be small enough not to change road congestion; if the fleet's driving alters link travel times, or the calibration misrepresents downtown congestion, the baseline and fleet fuel numbers that generate the 7% saving would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ride-sharing operators that optimize only wait and delay can burn more fuel per customer than personal cars; adding fuel cost to the assignment is the corrective.
  • Fuel-oriented assignment works by raising occupancy to 1.2–1.3 customers per vehicle, so sharing, not eco-driving alone, is the main fuel lever.
  • Eco-routing adds a further 5–8% fuel reduction on top of either assignment objective, so routing and assignment should be tuned together.
  • Fuel-oriented fleets need slightly more vehicles than time-oriented fleets to keep 90% of customers within time constraints, because higher occupancy raises wait and delay.
  • A weighted objective that balances system fuel against individual time cost can trace a Pareto frontier, with one tested configuration offering good time performance and fuel savings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same controller were run with congestion feedback, the 7% figure would change; the paper's own scope condition says the fleet is small, so a scaled-up fleet is the natural stress test of the result.
  • For electric fleets, swapping the fuel model for an energy-and-charging cost would likely preserve the structural result, but empty-mile penalties and rebalancing costs would remain and should be re-measured.
  • Per-customer fuel metrics that ignore empty rebalancing distance can overstate the benefit of ride-sharing; the paper's 13% penalty demonstrates why empty miles belong in the numerator.
  • The 1.4–7.0% range is tied to the demand pattern and time constraints used; denser demand or looser delay limits could push occupancy and savings outside this range.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops Eco-MOD, a fleet control algorithm for shared mobility-on-demand that minimizes fleet fuel consumption while satisfying customer wait-time and delay constraints. The algorithm extends the shareability-graph and clique-based assignment framework of Alonso-Mora et al. (2017) by replacing travel-time costs with fuel-consumption costs, using a data-driven fuel model from the authors' prior work, and it adds an active idle-fleet rebalancing step. The system is evaluated in a SUMO microsimulation calibrated with SPMD data and POLARIS-generated demand for Ann Arbor, comparing eight configuration of assignment cost (travel time vs. fleet fuel) and routing strategy (fastest, eco, or hybrid) against a personal-vehicle baseline. The headline finding is that fuel-aware assignment with 1.2-1.3 passengers per vehicle reduces fuel consumption per customer by 1.4-7.0% relative to the baseline while serving over 90% of customers within constraints, whereas travel-time-oriented assignment can increase fuel consumption by 13% due to empty-vehicle mileage.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper makes a useful and practical contribution: it demonstrates that including fuel consumption directly in the trip-assignment and routing objective, rather than relying on travel-time optimization or purely demand-side ride-sharing, can reduce fleet-level fuel use. The simulation framework is carefully structured, with real-world calibration data, a microscopic traffic simulator, and a clear set of controlled configurations. The algorithmic extension of the shareability-graph method to fuel costs is plausible and well described. The main significance is conditional on the validity of the evaluation, because the headline 7% figure is produced inside a simulator with a fuel model that is also the optimization objective. The paper would be substantially strengthened by an independent fuel/emissions evaluation, a sensitivity analysis of the calibration error, and additional scenarios or replications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.A] The reported fuel savings are measured with the same data-driven fuel consumption model [3] that is used as the optimization objective in the trip assignment (Section II.A) and as the routing cost (Section IV). Because the planner minimizes exactly the function that later scores the configurations, part of the measured gain may be an artifact of objective alignment rather than a physical fuel reduction. For example, the model's average-speed-only dependence may let the optimizer choose routes and assignments that look fuel-efficient under the model but would not transfer to a more detailed emissions model. I request an evaluation of the same simulated trajectories and assignments with an independent fuel consumption or emissions model (e.g., MOVES, SUMO's HBEFA-based model, or measured second-by-second fuel data) to confirm that the 1.4-7.0% savings are not an artifact of the shared model.
  2. [Section V.A] The traffic calibration reports a mean relative speed error of only -1% but a standard deviation of 25%, and the authors state that the simulation shows less congestion in the downtown area than measured values, possibly because pedestrians and public transit are not modeled. Since the fuel model consumes link speeds, a 25% spread in speed error and a systematic downtown bias can shift both the baseline personal-vehicle fuel and the MOD fleet fuel, and the directional effect on the 1.4-7.0% savings is not quantified. Please add a sensitivity analysis that perturbs the calibrated speeds or demand within the reported error distribution and reports the resulting range of the per-customer fuel savings, or re-calibrate the downtown network with additional modes.
  3. [Section V.C] The headline result is based on a single scenario: one city (Ann Arbor), one time window (17:00-19:00), one MOD penetration ratio (4%), one fleet size (1,200), and no reported statistics over multiple random seeds or demand draws. The paper states in Section VI that the analysis assumes the MOD penetration is small enough that its effect on link travel times is negligible, but this assumption is not tested. To establish that the 1.4-7.0% reduction is a property of the algorithm rather than a single calibrated case, please report run-to-run variability (e.g., mean and confidence intervals over random seeds) and, if feasible, results for at least one additional demand scenario or a sensitivity sweep over penetration ratio within the current simulation framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] In the '9' row of Table I, 'Shorest Distance/Fastest' contains a typo; it should read 'Shortest Distance/Fastest.'
  2. [Section V.C] The phrase 'due to the the lower trip average speed' contains a duplicated 'the'; please correct it.
  3. [Section II] The abbreviation MOD is introduced as 'Mobility-on-Demand' in the abstract but later used as 'mobility-on-demand (MOD)' in the introduction; please make the usage consistent.
  4. [Section V.C] The paper claims the algorithm is 'fast enough for real-world implementation' but does not report computation times for the TSP/ILP/rebalancing steps. A brief timing table would support that claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The headline fuel-saving figure is computed with the same data-driven fuel model that the assignment optimizer minimizes, so the evaluation is not independent of the objective.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.A (TSP transition cost) and Section V.C (MOD and Routing Strategy's Influence on Energy)]
    "In our eco-MOD framework, the fuel consumption of traveling between locations associated with the states is used as the transitional cost. ... However, if the objective function is to minimize the fleet fuel consumption, with 1.2 to 1.3 passengers assigned to each vehicle on average, the fuel consumption per customer can be reduced by 1.4% to 7.0% compared to the baseline."

    The fuel consumption model from [3] is used both as the optimization objective (transitional cost in the TSP and fleet assignment cost) and as the metric behind the reported 7% saving. The paper does not apply an independent fuel or emissions model to the simulated trajectories. Consequently the claimed 1.4-7.0% reduction is a comparison of the optimizer's own cost function before and after optimization. A decrease in that function is expected by construction; the magnitude is a property of the coupled optimizer plus the [3] fuel model, not an out-of-sample measurement of physical fuel use.

full rationale

The central 7% claim is an emergent simulation output rather than an analytic identity, so this is not full circularity. The algorithm itself is a nontrivial extension of [8] and the comparison across eight configurations has independent algorithmic content. However, the evaluation metric is the same data-driven fuel model that is minimized, and that model comes from the authors' prior work [3]; no separately validated fuel or emissions model is used to score the configurations. This makes the headline saving partly self-referential. The calibration mismatch (mean speed error -1%, std 25%, reduced downtown congestion) and the negligible-congestion assumption are modeling risks, but they are not circularity. The self-citations to [41] for network partitioning and to [3] for the fuel model are not uniqueness arguments and do not by themselves force the result. Score 3 reflects partial circularity in the evaluation metric, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core fuel-saving claim rests on the calibrated traffic simulator, the data-driven fuel model, and the small-penetration assumption. The free parameters and domain assumptions listed above are not derived in this paper; they are inputs from prior work or chosen settings. The headline 7% result should be read as conditional on these choices.

free parameters (7)
  • Active rebalancing weight w_c = not reported
    In Eq. (9), w_c trades off the cost of relocating idle vehicles against the distribution-balancing objective. The choice affects empty mileage and therefore the reported fuel savings.
  • Shared-trip discount factor gamma = not reported
    In Eq. (10), gamma scales the customer departure rate to account for shared trips in the idle-vehicle count prediction. It changes the rebalancing policy and hence fuel use.
  • Calibration regularization weight psi = not reported
    In Eq. (17), psi balances the SPMD link-flow fit against the POLARIS OD prior. It shapes the calibrated demand used in the fuel comparison.
  • Speed-density parameters rho_critical and epsilon = not reported
    In Eq. (13), the critical density and jam speed determine the mapping from measured speed to link flow in the calibration. Different values change the estimated traffic state.
  • MOD demand penetration ratio = 4%
    The simulation assumes 4% of total trips are MOD customers. The fuel impact of ride-sharing and empty miles scales with this ratio.
  • Fleet size = 1200
    Fleet size is set to 1,200 so all configurations serve more than 90% of customers within constraints, but the 7% fuel result is specific to this fleet size.
  • Customer travel time constraints = 5 min wait, 5 min delay
    Max wait and delay times are inputs to the feasibility cliques; looser or tighter constraints change the shareability graph and matching.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Road network is static and all optimal routes are solved offline before assignment.
    Stated in Section II.A; dynamic traffic information is deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption The fuel consumption model of Huang and Peng [3] accurately represents fleet fuel use.
    Used both as the assignment cost and as the evaluation metric; not re-validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption MOD penetration is small enough that the fleet does not significantly affect link travel times.
    Stated in Section VI; if false, baseline and MOD fuel estimates would change.
  • domain assumption Customer departures in each partition follow a Poisson process.
    Assumed in Eq. (10) to predict idle vehicle counts in the rebalancing formulation.
  • domain assumption Microscopic driving behavior follows parameters from Maciejewski [45].
    Used for car-following and lane-change in SUMO, Section III.
  • domain assumption SPMD speed observations and POLARIS demand are valid calibration targets.
    Calibration in Section III minimizes deviation from SPMD flows with POLARIS as a prior; links with fewer than 100 events are excluded.
  • domain assumption Background drivers follow shortest-distance or empirical shortest-time routes.
    Route choice assumption in Section III; the split is calibrated.
  • domain assumption The fleet is homogeneous ICE vehicles with powertrain parameters from [3].
    Section IV; heterogeneous powertrains would change fuel trade-offs.
  • standard math The Bron-Kerbosch algorithm enumerates all maximal cliques, and dynamic programming solves the pickup-and-delivery TSP exactly for small cliques.
    Used in Section II.A as the combinatorial backbone of the fleet assignment method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eco-Mobility-on-Demand Fleet Control with Ride-Sharing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZWEZBGC

@misc{pith2026190809828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eco-Mobility-on-Demand Fleet Control with Ride-Sharing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZWEZBGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09828}
}
read the original abstract

Shared Mobility-on-Demand using automated vehicles can reduce energy consumption and cost for future mobility. However, its full potential in energy saving has not been fully explored. An algorithm to minimize fleet fuel consumption while satisfying customers travel time constraints is developed in this paper. Numerical simulations with realistic travel demand and route choice are performed, showing that if fuel consumption is not considered, the MOD service can increase fleet fuel consumption due to increased empty vehicle mileage. With fuel consumption as part of the cost function, we can reduce total fuel consumption by 7 percent while maintaining a high level of mobility service.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Eco -Routing based on a Data Driven Fuel Consumption Model,

    X. Huang and H. Peng, “Eco -Routing based on a Data Driven Fuel Consumption Model,” in 14th International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC), 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Annual Energy Outlook 2017 with projections to 2050,

    EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2017 with projections to 2050,” pp. 1–64, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,

    D. Schrank., B. Eisele., T. Lomax., and J. Bak., “2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,” Texas A&M Transp. Institue, vol. 39, no. August, p. 5, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs of Connected and Automated Vehicles,

    T. S. St ephens, J. Gonder, Y. Chen, Z. Lin, C. Liu, and D. Gohlke, “Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs of Connected and Automated Vehicles,” Tech. Rep. NREL/TP - 5400-67216, no. November, p. 58, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Shared Mobility On The R oad Of The Future

    “Shared Mobility On The R oad Of The Future.” [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2016/07/20/shared- mobility-on-the-road-of-the-future/#a3a6c851cae8. [Accessed: 20 -Mar- 2019]

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Effects of travel reduction and efficient driving on transportation: Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,

    C. D. Porter, A. Brown, J. DeFlorio, E. McKenzie, W. Tao, and L. Vimmerstedt, “Effects of travel reduction and efficient driving on transportation: Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,” 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Predictive Routing for Autonomous Mobility -on-Demand Systems with Ride -Sharing,

    J. Alonso -mora, A. Wallar, and D. Rus, “Predictive Routing for Autonomous Mobility -on-Demand Systems with Ride -Sharing,” pp. 3583–3590, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    On-demand high -capacity ride -sharing via dynamic trip -vehicle assignment,

    J. Alonso-Mora, S. Samaranayake, A. Wallar, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, “On-demand high -capacity ride -sharing via dynamic trip -vehicle assignment,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 462 –467, Jan. 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Taxi Dispa tch with Real -Time Sensing Data in Metropolitan Areas: A Receding Horizon Control Approach,

    F. Miao et al. , “Taxi Dispa tch with Real -Time Sensing Data in Metropolitan Areas: A Receding Horizon Control Approach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 463–478, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Congestion -Aware Randomized Routing in Autonomous Mobilit y-on-Demand Sys tems,

    F. Rossi, R. Zhang, and M. Pavone, “Congestion -Aware Randomized Routing in Autonomous Mobilit y-on-Demand Sys tems,” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 99, pp. 1–29, Sep. 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Analysis , Control , and Evaluation of Mobility -on-Demand Systems : a Queueing -Theoretical Approach,

    R. Zhang, F. Rossi, and M. Pavone, “Analysis , Control , and Evaluation of Mobility -on-Demand Systems : a Queueing -Theoretical Approach,” pp. 1–10, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Models and Asymptotically Optimal Algorithms for Pickup and Delivery Problems on Roadmaps (submitted),

    K. Treleaven, M. Pavone, and E. Frazzoli, “Models and Asymptotically Optimal Algorithms for Pickup and Delivery Problems on Roadmaps (submitted),” Decis. Control (CDC), 2012 51st IEEE Conf. , pp. 5691 – 5698, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Fle et Sizing in Vehicle Sharing Systems with Service Quality Guarantees,

    M. Čáp, S. Vajna, and E. Frazzoli, “Fle et Sizing in Vehicle Sharing Systems with Service Quality Guarantees,” 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Optimizing Vehicle Distributions and Fleet Sizes for Mobility-on-Demand

    A. Wallar, J. Alonso -mora, and D. Rus, “Optimizing Vehicle Distributions and Fleet Sizes for Mobility-on-Demand.”

  7. [15]

    Addressing the minimum fleet problem in on -demand urban mobility,

    M. M. Vazifeh, P. Santi, G. Resta, S. H. Strogatz, and C. Ratti, “Addressing the minimum fleet problem in on -demand urban mobility,” Nature, vol. 557, no. 7706, pp. 534–538, May 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Scaling Law of Urban Ride Sharing,

    R. Tachet et al., “Scaling Law of Urban Ride Sharing,” Sci. Rep., vol. 7, p. 42868, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Impacts of car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,

    S. Shaheen and E. Martin, “ Impacts of car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” pp. 0–25, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A New Generation of Vehicle Routing Research: Robust Algorithms, Addressing Uncertainty,

    D. J. Bertsimas and D. Simchi -Levi, “A New Generation of Vehicle Routing Research: Robust Algorithms, Addressing Uncertainty,” Oper. Res., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 286–304, 1996

    1996

  11. [19]

    A branch -and-price-and-check model for the vehicle routing problem with location congestion,

    E. Lam and P. Van Hentenryck, “A branch -and-price-and-check model for the vehicle routing problem with location congestion,” Constraints, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 394–412, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Scenario -Based Planning for Partially Dynamic Vehicle Routing with Stochastic Customers,

    R. W. Bent and P. Van Hent enryck, “Scenario -Based Planning for Partially Dynamic Vehicle Routing with Stochastic Customers,” Oper. Res., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 977–987, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Benders Decomposition for the Design of a Hub and Shuttle Public Transit System,

    A. Maheo, P. Kilby, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Benders Decomposition for the Design of a Hub and Shuttle Public Transit System,” no. January 2018, 2015

    2018

  14. [22]

    The vehicle routing problem: An overview of exact and approximate algorithms,

    G. Laporte, “The vehicle routing problem: An overview of exact and approximate algorithms,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review,

    N. Agatz, A. Erera, M. Savelsbergh, and X. Wang, “Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 223, no. 2, pp. 295–303, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    A Genetic and Insertion Heuristic Algorithm for Solving the Dynamic Ridematching Problem with Time Windows,

    W. Herbawi and M. Weber, “A Genetic and Insertion Heuristic Algorithm for Solving the Dynamic Ridematching Problem with Time Windows,” Gecco 2012, pp. 385–392, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time window constraints,

    M. M. S olomon, “Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time window constraints,” vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 254 –265, 1987

    1987

  18. [26]

    Bee Colony Optimization – A cooperative learning approach to complex transportation problems,

    D. Teodorović and M. Dell ’orco, “Bee Colony Optimization – A cooperative learning approach to complex transportation problems,” Adv. OR AI Methods Transp., 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    A decomposition algorithm to solve the multi-hop Pe er-to-Peer ride -matching problem,

    N. Masoud and R. Jayakrishnan, “A decomposition algorithm to solve the multi-hop Pe er-to-Peer ride -matching problem,” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 99, no. May, pp. 1–29, May 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    The shared -taxi problem: Formulation and solution methods,

    H. Hosni, J. Naoum-Sawaya, and H. Artail, “The shared -taxi problem: Formulation and solution methods,” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 70, pp. 303–318, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    A data -driven discrete simulation - based optimization algorithm for large-scale two -way car -sharing network design

    T. Zhou, C. Osorio, and E. Fields, “A data -driven discrete simulation - based optimization algorithm for large-scale two -way car -sharing network design.”

  22. [30]

    Privacy -Preserving Vehicle Assignment for Mobility-on-Demand Systems,

    A. Prorok and V. Kumar, “Privacy -Preserving Vehicle Assignment for Mobility-on-Demand Systems,” 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Congestion-aware system optimal route choice for shared autonomous vehicles,

    M. W. Levin, “Congestion-aware system optimal route choice for shared autonomous vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 82, pp. 229–247, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Model Predictive Control of Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,

    R. Zhang, F. Rossi, and M. Pavone, “Model Predictive Control of Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,” Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , pp. 1382–1389, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Multi-Objective Analysis of Ridesharing in Automated Mobility-on-Demand,

    M. Cap and J. Alonso-Mora, “Multi-Objective Analysis of Ridesharing in Automated Mobility-on-Demand,” 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    A Green Vehicle Rout ing Problem,

    S. Erdoĝan and E. Miller -Hooks, “A Green Vehicle Rout ing Problem,” Transp. Res. P art E Logist. Transp. Rev. , vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 100 –114, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    POLARIS: Agent-based modeling framework de velopment and implementation for integrated travel demand and network and operations s imulations,

    J. Auld, M. Hope, H. Ley, V. Sokolov, B. Xu, and K. Zhang, “POLARIS: Agent-based modeling framework de velopment and implementation for integrated travel demand and network and operations s imulations,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 64, pp. 101–116, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Safety pilot model deployment: Test conductor team report,

    D. Bezzina and J. Sayer, “Safety pilot model deployment: Test conductor team report,” Rep. No. DOT HS, vol. 812, no. June, p. 171, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Recent Development and Applications of SUMO–Simulation of Urban MObility,

    D. Krajzewicz and J. Erdmann, “ Recent Development and Applications of SUMO–Simulation of Urban MObility,” Int. J. … , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 128–138, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Algorithm 457: find ing all cliques of an undirected graph,

    C. Bron and J. Kerbosch, “Algorithm 457: find ing all cliques of an undirected graph,” Commun. ACM, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 575–577, 1973

    1973

  31. [39]

    Real -Time City -Scale Taxi Ridesharing,

    S. Ma, Y. Zheng, and O. Wolfson, “Real -Time City -Scale Taxi Ridesharing,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1782 – 1795, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Gurobi Optimizer reference manual,

    G. O. Inc., “Gurobi Optimizer reference manual,” Www.Gurobi.Com, vol. 6, p. 572, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Efficient Mobility -on-Demand System with Ride-Sharing,

    X. Huang and H. Peng, “Efficient Mobility -on-Demand System with Ride-Sharing,” in IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Randomized rounding: A technique for provably good algori thms and algorithmic proofs,

    P. Raghavan a nd C. D. Tompson, “Randomized rounding: A technique for provably good algori thms and algorithmic proofs,” Combinatorica, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 365–374, Dec. 1987

    1987

  35. [43]

    Activity planning processes in the Agent-based Dynamic Acti vity Planning and Travel Scheduling (ADAPTS) model,

    J. Auld and A. K. Mohammadian, “Activity planning processes in the Agent-based Dynamic Acti vity Planning and Travel Scheduling (ADAPTS) model,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    TraCI4Matlab: Enabling the integration of the SUMO road traffic simulator and Matlab® through a software re -engineering process,

    A. F. Acosta, J. E. Espinosa, and J. Espinosa, “TraCI4Matlab: Enabling the integration of the SUMO road traffic simulator and Matlab® through a software re -engineering process,” in Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    A Comparison of Microscopic Traffic Flow Simulation,

    M. Maciejewski, “A Comparison of Microscopic Traffic Flow Simulation,” Transp. Probl., vol. 5, no. 4, 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    Toward a Systematic Approach to th e Design and Evaluation of Automated Mobility -on-Demand Systems : A Case Stu dy in Singapore,

    K. Ballantyne et al., “Toward a Systematic Approach to th e Design and Evaluation of Automated Mobility -on-Demand Systems : A Case Stu dy in Singapore,” pp. 0–16, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Robotic load balancing for mobility-on-demand systems The,

    M. Pavone, S. L. Smith, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, “Robotic load balancing for mobility-on-demand systems The,” pp. 0–25, 2012. > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 10 Xianan Huan g received the Ph.D degree in mechanical engine...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.