Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Maximal Compatibility Matching for Preference-Aware Ride-Hailing Systems

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Passenger comfort can be incorporated into ride-hailing matching as a geometric overlap score, and the paper shows that this preserves operational performance in a simulator study.

desk verdict Interesting geometric framing of ride-hailing compatibility, but the central compatibility score is mis-specified and the validation is too thin to support the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02599 v1 pith:IG7HY3EL submitted 2025-05-05 eess.SY cs.SY

Avalpreet Singh Brar , Rong Su , Jaskaranveer Kaur , Xinling Li , Gioele Zardini This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords ride-hailingmatchingpassengercomfortcompatibilityscoregradient-boosteddecisiontreesdriveroperatingprofileutility-basedassignmentpreference-awaremobility
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 argues that ride-hailing assignment need not choose between operational efficiency and passenger comfort. It proposes a Maximal Compatibility Matching scheme in which each passenger's comfort zone is learned from labeled ride feedback with a gradient-boosted decision tree, each driver's typical behavior is summarized as a box of feature values, and the compatibility of a pair is measured by the volume of overlap between the two regions. That score enters a weighted assignment objective with a trade-off parameter $\alpha$ that sweeps from distance-minimizing to comfort-maximizing matching. In a simulator study with real-time passenger feedback, the approach yields matchings that track personal comfort preferences while preserving operational performance.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the geometric compatibility score of Eq. (9). A passenger's comfort zone is represented as a union of axis-aligned hyperrectangles (Eq. (8)), and a driver's operating zone is a single axis-aligned hyperrectangle defined by per-feature quantiles (Eq. (7)). For any pair of such boxes, the intersection volume is computed dimension by dimension as the product of positive interval overlaps, and the total $A_{ij}$ sums those products. This single number converts two learned data objects, tree-derived comfort regions and empirical driving envelopes, into an edge weight for a linear sum assignment problem, keeping the overall algorithm at the complexity of the Hungarian method. The paper also notes that in its 21-feature experiment the high-dimensional $A_{ij}$ is evaluated by density-based Monte Carlo sampling.

What would settle it

Take a passenger's learned gradient-boosted decision tree comfort region in two features, approximate it with two overlapping axis-aligned rectangles, take a driver box that intersects both, and compare Eq. (9) with a dense Monte Carlo integral over the actual decision boundary; disagreement would show the closed-form score is not the true intersection volume. The paper reports using density-based Monte Carlo sampling for $A_{ij}$ in its high-dimensional experiment, so this comparison can be run on the same data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that passenger-driver compatibility can be made a first-class quantity in ride-hailing matching. The paper learns a personalized comfort region $G_i(x)$ for each passenger from binary ride labels, using an ensemble of axis-aligned decision trees so the region is piecewise linear; it summarizes each driver's behavior as an axis-aligned hyperrectangle $f_j$ built from quantiles of that driver's historical feature distribution; and it defines compatibility $A_{ij}$ as the volume of intersection between these two geometric objects. For axis-aligned boxes the intersection volume has the closed form given in Eq. (9), a sum over boxes and dimensions of positive interval overlaps. The matching then maximizes $\alpha A_{ij} - (1-\alpha) D_{ij}$, with $D_{ij}$ a normalized distance, subject to one-to-one assignment constraints. The paper reports that this produces matchings that interpolate between distance-based and comfort-based assignments, and that the learned classifier distinguishes calm from rash rides with about 94% accuracy in its simulator study.

Load-bearing premise

The compatibility score is only the true overlap volume if a passenger's learned comfort region can be written as a disjoint union of axis-aligned boxes; with overlapping boxes, Eq. (9) double-counts intersections and the score no longer measures what the objective says it measures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators can dial between efficiency and comfort continuously: setting $\alpha=0$ reproduces distance-based matching, $\alpha=1$ reproduces comfort-based matching, and intermediate values produce assignments whose overlap with the two baseline matchings shifts monotonically.
  • Because compatibility scores can be precomputed offline and the online step is a linear assignment, preference-aware matching adds no combinatorial blow-up beyond the standard Hungarian algorithm.
  • Passenger comfort is treated as an individual learned quantity rather than a population average, so two passengers with the same pick-up and drop-off can be matched to different drivers when their comfort zones differ.
  • The reported classifier accuracy of about 94% indicates that binary ride feedback contains enough signal to reconstruct meaningful comfort regions from the recorded driving features.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disjoint-axis-aligned-box representation is not exact, the same assignment framework could still work with an exact Monte Carlo estimate of the decision boundary, or with boxes derived directly from tree leaf regions; the optimization layer does not depend on the closed-form shortcut.
  • The compatibility score could be extended to non-driving attributes such as vehicle type or route characteristics without changing the assignment layer, as long as those attributes enter the feature space used to train the comfort zones.
  • A natural next test is to run the same pipeline on logged ride data from a real platform with post-ride ratings instead of simulator labels; stable comfort zones across trips would justify periodic retraining rather than per-ride reestimation.
  • The trade-off parameter $\alpha$ is chosen by the platform, and the paper leaves open how to set it when passengers differ in how much comfort they are willing to trade against waiting time.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Maximal Compatibility Matching (MCM) framework for ride-hailing assignment. MCM learns a per-passenger comfort zone in a feature space using gradient-boosted decision tree classifiers trained on passenger feedback, represents each driver's behavior as an axis-aligned hyperrectangle built from quantiles of historical driving features, and defines the passenger-driver compatibility score A_ij as the volume of intersection of the comfort zone and the operating rectangle (Eq. (9)). This score is combined with normalized spatial distance in a weighted bipartite assignment optimization with a trade-off parameter alpha (Section II-D). The authors validate the framework in a Unity-based simulator with 5 drivers and 13 passengers, reporting classifier accuracy and a Jaccard-similarity analysis that shows the trade-off between comfort- and distance-based matching as alpha varies.

Significance. The problem addressed is relevant: integrating passenger comfort into ride-hailing assignment could improve user experience in a maturing market. The core idea of representing passenger preferences as learned feature-space regions and driver behavior as empirical envelopes is intuitive and potentially useful. The paper provides a clear formulation of the optimization and a simple algorithmic structure that is easy to implement. The inclusion of a simulator study with real-time human feedback is a strength, and the authors are transparent about using Monte Carlo sampling in the experimental section. However, the paper's central claims rely on a compatibility score whose derivation and normalization contain substantial gaps, and the validation is far too limited to support the operational-performance conclusions. If these issues are addressed, the framework could be a meaningful contribution, but as it stands the evidence is not convincing.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (9)] The compatibility score A_ij is defined as the sum of intersection volumes over the Ki hyperrectangles in the union representation of Eq. (8). If any two of these hyperrectangles overlap, this sum double-counts the intersection volume with the driver's box f_j. The paper neither states that the rectangles are disjoint nor provides a procedure to construct a disjoint decomposition from a GBDT ensemble. Since the decision boundary of a gradient-boosted tree is the level set of a sum of tree outputs, it cannot generally be represented as a union of leaf boxes from a single tree. Consequently, Eq. (9) does not compute the true 'volume of intersection' claimed in the abstract and Section II-C.
  2. [Section III-A] The abstract and Eq. (9) assert that compatibility is computed in closed form, but the experimental section explicitly states that 'Aij volume is being calculated using density-based Monte Carlo Sampling.' This is a direct contradiction. The authors must either implement the closed-form computation for the boxes actually used, clearly define the box construction from the GBDT, or consistently present A_ij as a Monte Carlo approximation and discuss its estimation error and computational cost.
  3. [Section II-D] The optimization objective combines alpha*A_ij and (1-alpha)*D_ij, and the text says 'Aij in [0,1]'. However, Eq. (9) returns a raw volume in the 21-dimensional feature space, which is not in [0,1] and has units that depend on the arbitrary scaling of each feature. D_ij is normalized to [0,1]. Without normalizing A_ij (e.g., by a reference volume or by the maximum over all pairs), alpha is not a meaningful trade-off weight, and the reported results for alpha = 0.5 are not interpretable as balancing comfort and distance.
  4. [Section II-D and Section III-A] The assignment constraints Σ_j X_ij = 1 for all i and Σ_i X_ij = 1 for all j enforce equal numbers of passengers and drivers, yet the simulator study reports 5 drivers and 13 passengers. The paper does not explain how a feasible matching was obtained, for instance by selecting a subset of passengers, adding dummy entities, or relaxing the constraints. This inconsistency undermines the validity of the matching case studies.
  5. [Section III-B, Fig. 5] The Jaccard similarity analysis is a tautological check of the optimizer rather than a validation of the framework: as alpha increases, the utility-based matching becomes more similar to comfort-based matching by construction of the objective. The paper reports no operational metrics such as total distance, average waiting time, achieved compatibility, or user satisfaction for the three strategies, so the claim in the conclusion that MCM 'maintains high levels of operational performance' is unsupported by the presented experiments.
  6. [Section III] The experimental evaluation is extremely small-scale: 5 drivers, 13 passengers, a single simulation run, no error bars, and no statistical tests. The classifier performance in Table I is reported without train/test split details, number of segments, or variance estimates. This level of validation is insufficient to support the general claims about the MCM framework's effectiveness and scalability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (8)] There is a typo: 'approximated ba a union' should be 'approximated by a union'.
  2. [Section I-A] The reference [2] in the introduction appears to be about the epoxy resins market, which seems irrelevant to the ride-hailing market size claim. Please check and correct the citation.
  3. [Section III-A] The 'Gaussian Naive Bayes-like correction step' is described only informally. Please provide the exact likelihood computation and how labels are reassigned, or remove this step if it is not essential.
  4. [Section III-A] The text says the raw signals are speed, acceleration, and jerk (3 signals) but then states that 21 statistical features are extracted. Please clarify how 21 features arise from these three signals.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption refers to a 'red box' for the passenger's comfort zone while the text in Section III-A says 'red region with decision boundaries'. Please make the description consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The core compatibility derivation is not circular; only the Fig. 5 Jaccard 'validation' is a definitional sanity check.

  1. self definitional [Section III-B, Eq. (10) and Fig. 5]
    "Fig. 5 shows how the similarity between the utility-based matching and the two baselines evolves as a function of α. As expected, increasing α shifts the solution from proximity-driven to preference-driven behavior: similarity with comfort-based matching increases, while similarity with distance-based matching declines. This confirms that the utility-based formulation provides fine-grained control over matching priorities."

    The utility objective in Section II-D is max Σ (αA_ij − (1−α)D_ij), so α=0 is exactly distance matching and α=1 is exactly comfort matching. The monotone increase in Jaccard similarity with the comfort baseline and decrease with the distance baseline is entailed by the definition of the objective function for any dataset; it is not an empirical finding about ride-hailing behavior. Presenting this as 'confirmation' that MCM works is a self-definitional validation, although it is a minor sanity check rather than the paper's central claim.

full rationale

The core compatibility score A_ij is derived from two independent data sources: passenger comfort labels (via the GBDT classifier) and driver operating envelopes (via quantiles of driving features). The matching optimization then combines this score with distance; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion depends on a self-citation. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [4], [7], [9], [10]) concern rebalancing, pricing, and fairness and are not used to justify the compatibility derivation. The apparent inconsistency between the claimed closed-form Eq. (9) and the Monte Carlo computation in Section III-A, and the unspecified conversion of the GBDT boundary into disjoint hyperrectangles in Eq. (8), are correctness/consistency issues rather than circularity: they do not make the output equal to the input by construction. The only genuine circularity is the Fig. 5 Jaccard analysis, which is a tautological consequence of the interpolation parameter α in the objective; since this is presented only as a sanity check, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions about the validity of learned comfort zones, quantile envelopes, and geometric overlap as a compatibility measure, plus a hand-chosen trade-off parameter. No code or data is provided, and the box-extraction step from the tree ensemble is left unspecified.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (trade-off weight) = 0.5 in experiments (user-specified)
    Controls the balance between compatibility and distance in the objective (Section II-D); no principled selection method is given.
  • Quantile levels for driver envelope = 5th and 95th percentiles
    Chosen to summarize the driver's operating range; sensitivity not analyzed.
  • Comfort threshold epsilon_i = Passenger-specified
    Defines the comfort boundary in Eq. (5); treated as an input, but its effect on compatibility is not studied.
  • GBDT hyperparameters = Not reported
    Number of trees, learning rate, tree depth, and class weights are not given, so the learned comfort zones are not reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Passenger comfort is a binary, feature-dependent property that can be learned from labeled ride segments.
    The whole framework depends on the classifier producing a valid comfort boundary from the available labels (Section II-A).
  • domain assumption A driver's behavior is adequately represented by an axis-aligned hyperrectangle spanning the 5th-95th percentiles of each feature.
    Section II-B uses this envelope to define the operating zone; if the true behavior is multimodal or correlated, the envelope misrepresents the driver.
  • domain assumption The volume of intersection between the comfort region and the driver envelope is a valid measure of mutual compatibility.
    Section II-C equates compatibility with geometric overlap; no empirical justification is provided.
  • domain assumption The Unity simulator with 5 drivers and 13 passengers produces feedback representative of real ride-hailing comfort judgments.
    Section III uses simulator data to validate the framework; no comparison to real-world data is made.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear utility combination alpha*A_ij - (1-alpha)*D_ij captures the desired trade-off between comfort and efficiency.
    Section II-D postulates this objective without an axiomatic or empirical derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximal Compatibility Matching for Preference-Aware Ride-Hailing Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IG7HY3EL

@misc{pith2026250502599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximal Compatibility Matching for Preference-Aware Ride-Hailing Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IG7HY3EL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02599}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents the Maximal Compatibility Matching (MCM) framework, a novel assignment strategy for ride-hailing systems that explicitly incorporates passenger comfort into the matching process. Traditional assignment methods prioritize spatial efficiency, but often overlook behavioral alignment between passengers and drivers, which can significantly impact user satisfaction. MCM addresses this gap by learning personalized passenger comfort zones using gradient-boosted decision tree classifiers trained on labeled ride data, and by modeling driver behavior through empirical operating profiles constructed from time-series driving features. Compatibility between a passenger and a driver is computed as the closed-form volume of intersection between their respective feature-space regions. These compatibility scores are integrated into a utility-based matching algorithm that balances comfort and proximity through a tunable trade-off parameter. We validate the framework using a Unity-based driving simulator with real-time passenger feedback, demonstrating that MCM enables more personalized and socially acceptable matchings while maintaining high levels of operational performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometric illustration of compatibility in a two-dimensional feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top 5 features based on gain values computed by the gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of passenger-driver matching under three assignment strategies: distance-based matching (left), which minimizes total travel distance; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of passenger and driver compatibility regions in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Jaccard similarity between the utility-based matching and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    How machine learning informs ride-hailing services: A survey,

    Y . Liu, R. Jia, J. Ye, and X. Qu, “How machine learning informs ride-hailing services: A survey,” Communications in Transportation Research, vol. 2, p. 100075, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Epoxy resins market—growth, trends, covid-19 im- pact, and forecasts (2022–2027),

    M. Intelligence, “Epoxy resins market—growth, trends, covid-19 im- pact, and forecasts (2022–2027),” Mordor Intelligence, 2021

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Analysis and control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    G. Zardini, N. Lanzetti, M. Pavone, and E. Frazzoli, “Analysis and control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 633– 658, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Dynamic supply-demand balancing policy for cmod fleet,

    A. S. Brar and R. Su, “Dynamic supply-demand balancing policy for cmod fleet,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 2435–2440

    2021

  5. [5]

    Vehicle rebalancing for mobility-on-demand systems with ride-sharing,

    A. Wallar, M. Van Der Zee, J. Alonso-Mora, and D. Rus, “Vehicle rebalancing for mobility-on-demand systems with ride-sharing,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 4539–4546

    2018

  6. [6]

    Fairness- enhancing vehicle rebalancing in the ride-hailing system,

    X. Guo, H. Xu, D. Zhuang, Y . Zheng, and J. Zhao, “Fairness- enhancing vehicle rebalancing in the ride-hailing system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00093, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Ensuring service fairness in taxi fleet man- agement,

    A. S. Brar and R. Su, “Ensuring service fairness in taxi fleet man- agement,” in 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  8. [8]

    On re-balancing self-interested agents in ride-sourcing transportation networks,

    A. Sadeghi and S. L. Smith, “On re-balancing self-interested agents in ride-sourcing transportation networks,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 5119–5125

    work page 2019

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Integrated user matching and pricing in round-trip car-sharing,

    A. S. Brar, R. Su, G. Zardini, and J. Kaur, “Integrated user matching and pricing in round-trip car-sharing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08238, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Vehicle rebalancing under adherence uncertainty,

    A. S. Brar, R. Su, and G. Zardini, “Vehicle rebalancing under adherence uncertainty,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2412.16632

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A survey of algorithms for the generalized assignment problem,

    D. G. Cattrysse and L. N. Van Wassenhove, “A survey of algorithms for the generalized assignment problem,” European journal of opera- tional research, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 260–272, 1992

    1992

  4. [12]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval research logistics quarterly , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  5. [13]

    Dynamic pricing and matching in ride-hailing platforms,

    C. Yan, H. Zhu, N. Korolko, and D. Woodard, “Dynamic pricing and matching in ride-hailing platforms,” Naval Research Logistics (NRL) , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 705–724, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Two-stage stochastic matching and pricing with applications to ride hailing,

    Y . Feng, R. Niazadeh, and A. Saberi, “Two-stage stochastic matching and pricing with applications to ride hailing,” Operations Research, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1574–1594, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Robust matching-integrated vehicle rebalancing in ride-hailing system with uncertain demand,

    X. Guo, N. S. Caros, and J. Zhao, “Robust matching-integrated vehicle rebalancing in ride-hailing system with uncertain demand,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 150, pp. 161– 189, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Maximum weight online matching with deadlines,

    I. Ashlagi, M. Burq, C. Dutta, P. Jaillet, A. Saberi, and C. Sholley, “Maximum weight online matching with deadlines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.03526, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Deep dispatching: A deep reinforcement learning approach for vehicle dispatching on on- line ride-hailing platform,

    Y . Liu, F. Wu, C. Lyu, S. Li, J. Ye, and X. Qu, “Deep dispatching: A deep reinforcement learning approach for vehicle dispatching on on- line ride-hailing platform,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 161, p. 102694, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Optimizing online matching for ride-sourcing services with multi-agent deep reinforcement learning,

    J. Ke, F. Xiao, H. Yang, and J. Ye, “Optimizing online matching for ride-sourcing services with multi-agent deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06228 , 2019

    1902 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning for order-dispatching via order-vehicle distribution matching,

    M. Zhou, J. Jin, W. Zhang, Z. Qin, Y . Jiao, C. Wang, G. Wu, Y . Yu, and J. Ye, “Multi-agent reinforcement learning for order-dispatching via order-vehicle distribution matching,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management ,...

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. E. Ben-Akiva and S. R. Lerman, Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand . MIT press, 1985, vol. 9

    1985

  13. [21]

    Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges,

    M. Ben-Akiva, D. McFadden, K. Train, J. Walker, C. Bhat, M. Bier- laire, D. Bolduc, A. Boersch-Supan, D. Brownstone, D. S. Bunchet al., “Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges,” Marketing Letters, vol. 13, pp. 163–175, 2002

    2002

  14. [22]

    Matching algorithm for im- proving ride-sharing by incorporating route splits and social factors,

    O. F. Aydin, I. Gokasar, and O. Kalan, “Matching algorithm for im- proving ride-sharing by incorporating route splits and social factors,” PloS one, vol. 15, no. 3, p. e0229674, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Mobility sharing as a preference matching problem,

    H. Zhang and J. Zhao, “Mobility sharing as a preference matching problem,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 2584–2592, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    User pref- erences in ride-sharing mathematical models for enhanced matching,

    Z. Dastani, H. Koosha, H. Karimi, and A. M. Moghaddam, “User pref- erences in ride-sharing mathematical models for enhanced matching,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 27338, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Understanding and modeling the social preferences for riders in rideshare matching,

    Y . Cui, R. S. M. S. Makhija, R. B. Chen, Q. He, and A. Khani, “Understanding and modeling the social preferences for riders in rideshare matching,” Transportation, vol. 48, pp. 1809–1835, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Stable matching of users in a ridesharing model,

    D. Fajardo-Delgado, C. Hern ´andez-Bernal, M. G. S ´anchez-Cervantes, J. A. Trejo-S ´anchez, I. E. Espinosa-Curiel, and J. E. Molinar-Solis, “Stable matching of users in a ridesharing model,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 15, p. 7797, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.