Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Designing Dynamic Pricing for Bike-sharing Systems via Differentiable Agent-based Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that making a bike-sharing agent-based simulation differentiable lets gradient descent find station- and time-specific discounts that rebalance bicycle inventory without operator relocations.

desk verdict A credible application of differentiable ABM to bike-share pricing, but the headline result is only shown in the relaxed simulator until the authors add hard-sample evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23344 v2 pith:4F6SS5V6 submitted 2025-07-31 cs.LG cs.MA

Tatsuya Mitomi , Fumiyasu Makinoshima , Fumiya Makihara , Eigo Segawa This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.MA
keywords bike-sharingsystemsdynamicpricingagent-basedsimulationdifferentiableprogrammingautomaticdifferentiationGumbel-Softmaxdiscretechoicemodelinventoryrebalancing
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

The paper argues that dynamic pricing for bike-sharing systems can be designed by making the agent-based simulation itself differentiable, so standard gradient-based optimization replaces slow derivative-free searches. Each simulated user probabilistically chooses a return station based on discount differences and distance, and all random sampling is reparameterized so gradients flow through the whole simulation. The claimed result is that optimized, station- and time-specific discounts naturally induce balanced inventories without any truck-based rebalancing, even with 1,156 pricing parameters. Against differential evolution and finite-difference baselines, the paper reports a 73-78% reduction in loss and more than 100-fold faster convergence in a 100-parameter scenario. A sympathetic reader would care because this makes pricing-policy design scalable to real bike-sharing networks and potentially applicable to other dynamic pricing problems with heterogeneous users.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the differentiable agent-based simulator built from a discrete choice model: a user's utility for an alternative return station is $u_{t,s} = w_{\text{discount}}\,\Delta p_{t,s} + w_{\text{distance}}\,d_{j,s} + \text{asc}_s$, with the choice set limited to stations offering higher discounts than the originally intended destination, while trip generation follows Poisson and exponential distributions. Gumbel-Softmax and its generalized version replace categorical and infinite discrete sampling with continuous approximations, allowing automatic differentiation to compute parameter gradients; SGD then updates all discount parameters simultaneously, making the number of simulation runs essentially independent of the parameter count.

What would settle it

Run the optimized price schedule in a real pilot or in a simulator calibrated to observed rider choices, and compare final station inventories against the no-pricing baseline; if the imbalance reduction disappears, or if measured switching propensities contradict the probabilities predicted by Eq. (2), the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dynamic pricing problem in bike-sharing systems can be formulated as a differentiable agent-based model and solved by gradient-based optimization despite stochastic user behavior. Each station-time discount is a learnable parameter, and the objective is the mean squared error between simulated and desired final bicycle inventory. The simulator becomes end-to-end differentiable by applying Gumbel-Softmax reparameterization to the discrete choice model and a generalized Gumbel-Softmax to the Poisson and exponential trip-sampling distributions, so one forward-backward pass yields gradients for all discount parameters at once. In synthetic experiments with 25 stations and then 289 stations, the estimated discount schedules balance inventories on held-out demand while using far fewer simulation runs than the derivative-free and finite-difference baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real riders choose their return station according to the logit rule in Eq. (2), trading off discount difference against distance with a fixed switching penalty, and that trip generation follows Poisson and exponential distributions; if actual rider behavior differs, the optimized discounts are not guaranteed to balance inventory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bike-sharing operators could reduce or replace manual bicycle relocation by publishing discounts that steer users toward under-supplied stations, since the learned policy balances inventory without operator intervention.
  • Optimization cost stops scaling with network size: the paper shows the number of simulation runs stays roughly the same when the parameter count grows from 100 to 1,156, because all gradients are computed in a single backward pass.
  • Initializing the discount parameters near zero yields substantially lower discount cost while preserving inventory balance, giving operators a concrete lever to control subsidy expense.
  • If the modeling analogy holds, the same differentiable-ABM template could be applied to dynamic pricing in online marketplaces, energy grids, and ride-hailing, where heterogeneous users respond probabilistically to price.
  • Fast re-optimization means pricing policies could be refreshed as trip demand patterns shift over time or across seasons, rather than being designed once and left fixed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The balancing result is only demonstrated under the paper's own logit utility assumption; a natural next test is to estimate the utility weights from real trip records and check whether the optimized policy still balances inventory.
  • Because the loss only penalizes final-time inventory, the optimized policy might permit undesirable mid-day imbalances or excessive detours; a multi-time-step objective would reveal whether that is a real weakness.
  • The flat optimum observed in Scenario 1 suggests many near-equivalent pricing policies exist, so operators could choose among them based on robustness to demand uncertainty rather than only on cost.
  • The claim that simulation-run count is independent of parameter count relies on batched automatic differentiation; with much larger networks or nonlinear learned utility functions, memory and per-run cost may grow even if the number of runs does not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a differentiable agent-based simulation (ABM) for designing dynamic pricing in bike-sharing systems. The ABM models trip departures via Poisson distributions, trip durations via exponential distributions, and destination switching via a discrete choice model whose utility depends on discount differences and distances. To enable gradient-based optimization, the authors replace all discrete sampling with Gumbel-Softmax and Generalized Gumbel-Softmax relaxations. They optimize time- and station-dependent discounts by SGD to minimize the mean squared error between the simulated final bicycle inventory and a desired target IT,j. The paper reports a 73--78% reduction in loss and over 100x faster convergence relative to differential evolution and finite differences on a 25-station, 100-parameter scenario, and demonstrates scalability to a 289-station, 1156-parameter scenario. It also shows that starting the optimization from near-zero discounts reduces the total discount cost while preserving the final loss.

Significance. The paper addresses a real operational problem---user-based rebalancing through dynamic pricing---and its core technical idea, making an ABM end-to-end differentiable with Gumbel-Softmax relaxations and optimizing prices by backpropagation, is a plausible and potentially useful contribution. The use of a held-out demand set for evaluation (demandtest) is good practice and strengthens the empirical claims. The observation that the number of simulation runs does not increase with the number of parameters is a concrete, falsifiable scalability claim that, if verified, would be valuable for large-scale BSS pricing. However, the significance is currently limited by the fact that all reported results come from the relaxed, fractional simulator, so the central claim that the derived policies 'naturally induce balanced inventory' is not yet established for the discrete stochastic process the ABM is intended to approximate. The paper also omits error bars, capacity constraints, and a systematic treatment of the self-chosen target inventory, which weakens the quantitative conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, §4.1.3, §4.2.2] All reported evaluation results appear to use the Gumbel-Softmax relaxation with τ=1.0 rather than discrete sampling. Section 3.4 replaces destination choice, Poisson departures, and exponential durations with Eq. (4) and GenGS; Section 4.1.3 sets τ=1.0. The evaluation descriptions in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 state that simulations are repeated 30 times using demandtest, but never state that the evaluation uses hard (argmax) or exact categorical samples. With τ=1, Eq. (4) produces a dense continuous vector for each agent, so agents are fractionally split across stations and inventories are fractional. The optimizer can exploit this smooth redistribution to match IT,j much more easily than a real system of indivisible bikes and one-station-per-user choices. The central claim that the derived policy 'naturally induces balanced inventory' is therefore only demonstrated for the relaxed simulator, not for the discrete stochastic process described in Sections 3.1--3.3. Please run evaluation with discrete/hard sampling and report the resulting losses and inventory distributions; if the relaxed evaluation is intended as the final claim, state this explicitly and justify why it is the relevant metric.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (7)] The inventory update in Section 3.5 and the loss in Eq. (7) do not include station capacity constraints or nonnegativity constraints on inventory. In a real bike-sharing system, station inventory is bounded below by zero and above by the number of docks; the paper never states station capacities or verifies that the optimized policy respects them. Since the relaxed simulator produces fractional inventories, a policy may achieve the target IT,j via average flows that would be infeasible in a discrete system (e.g., negative inventory or over-capacity stations). This is load-bearing for the practical validity of the proposed pricing policy. Please add capacity and nonnegativity constraints (or demonstrate that they are inactive on all evaluation runs) and report any violations.
  3. [§4.1.2, Table 1] The target inventory IT,j is manually set to 90 in Scenario 2 and 80 in Scenario 3, with the justification that 'some bicycles remain in transit and are not returned to the stations in the final time step.' Because the loss function and the reported 'balanced inventory' results are both defined relative to this self-chosen target, and because the evaluation uses the same simulator as training, the headline balancing claim is partly self-referential. To make the claim robust, the authors should either derive IT,j from the demand parameters or a real operational rule, show sensitivity of the results to different values of IT,j, and report an external balance measure such as the number of stations outside a target interval or the spread of final inventories, rather than only MSE against an arbitrary target.
  4. [§4.2.2, Fig. 12, Table 1] The quantitative claims of a 73--78% loss reduction and over 100x faster convergence are reported as point values from what appears to be a single optimization run per method and initial pattern. No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple independent optimization seeds are reported, and the DE and FD baselines are run for a fixed budget that is 100x longer than the proposed method rather than to a common convergence criterion. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed superiority is statistically significant or sensitive to the stopping rule and hyperparameters. Please report means and standard deviations over several independent optimization runs and specify the exact stopping criteria for DE and FD; otherwise the speed and accuracy advantages are not convincingly established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (1)] The choice set in Eq. (1) includes only stations with strictly higher discounts than the originally intended station. This is a strong behavioral assumption (users never switch to a lower-discount station even if it is much closer) and should be acknowledged and tested through sensitivity analysis.
  2. [§4.1.3] The value of the GenGS truncation limit n in Eq. (5) is never specified in the experiments. Please state the truncation value used for the Poisson and exponential distributions in each scenario.
  3. [§4.1.3] The softmax temperature τ is fixed to 1.0, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. Since the relaxed simulator is used both for optimization and for evaluation, the choice of τ directly affects the reported losses and the balancing results.
  4. [§4.2.2] The statement that the cost of user-based relocation can be minimized by 'setting appropriate initial conditions' is based on only two initial discount patterns. This is too narrow to support a general conclusion; a more systematic sweep over initial values or a theoretical argument would be needed.
  5. [Figures 5--7, 10--14] The heatmaps show only the average over 30 runs. Adding a measure of variability (e.g., standard deviation or a confidence band) would help the reader assess the stability of the balancing effect.
  6. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a reproducibility statement: no code, hyperparameter tuning procedure, or random seed information is provided for the proposed method or the baselines.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the pricing policy is optimized on demandest and evaluated on held-out demandtest, and the 73–78% loss reduction / 100x speedup is an inter-optimizer comparison on the same objective.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. In Scenarios 2 and 3, discount parameters are estimated on demandest and then evaluated by applying the estimated policy to demandtest, a demand realization generated with a different random seed and explicitly not used in estimation (Sec. 4.1.2). The 73–78% loss reduction and 100x convergence speedup are comparisons among differentiable ABM, DE, and FD optimizing the same loss (Eq. 7) on the same demand data, so the efficiency claim is an inter-optimizer benchmark rather than a fit renamed as prediction. Scenario 1's IT,j is generated from a known p using the simulator itself, but this is presented as a self-consistency check of gradient-based estimation, and the central claims do not rest on it. The only same-author citation is [44], used in the Discussion to illustrate possible future nonlinear DCM extensions; it is not load-bearing for the paper's results. The use of Gumbel-Softmax at tau = 1.0 for both training and evaluation means the balanced-inventory claim is demonstrated in the relaxed simulator rather than with hard discrete sampling; this is a real validity/correctness limitation, acknowledged indirectly by the future-work statement in Sec. 5, but it is not a case where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, or imported-uniqueness step was found.

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

The central claim rests on a set of hand-chosen behavioral and simulation parameters, most importantly the DCM utility weights, the softmax temperature, and the arbitrary target inventories. No real-world data or independent validation is used, so the entire pipeline is self-contained and its conclusions are conditional on the fidelity of these choices.

free parameters (5)
  • DCM utility weights (wdiscount, wdistance, ascs) = wdiscount=1, wdistance=-1, ascs=0 for intended, -1 for others
    Hand-set in all scenarios (Sec. 4.1.1). The optimized prices depend on these constants, which are not calibrated to any real user data. A different set of weights would produce a different pricing policy and different balance results.
  • Softmax temperature tau = 1.0
    Set in Sec. 4.1.3. Controls the bias and variance of the Gumbel-Softmax gradient estimator; affects the quality and speed of optimization.
  • Desired final inventory IT,j = 90 (Scenario 2), 80 (Scenario 3)
    Manually set by the authors (Sec. 4.1.2). The loss function measures deviation from this target, so the 'balanced inventory' claim is defined relative to an arbitrary constant. No feasibility analysis or capacity check is provided.
  • GenGS truncation limit n = not stated
    Eq. (5) truncates the infinite Poisson/exponential distributions at n, but the paper never specifies n. The approximation error of the differentiable sampling depends on this choice.
  • SGD learning rate = 1e-3 (Scenarios 1-2), 1e-2 (Scenario 3)
    Optimization hyperparameters chosen by the authors; the speed comparison with FD (lr=1e-5) is sensitive to these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trip demand between stations follows Poisson departure counts and exponential trip durations (Sec. 3.2).
    Standard BSS modeling choices [10,35], but not validated against real trip data in this paper; the optimized policy is only tested under these synthetic demand generators.
  • ad hoc to paper Users evaluate only the originally intended station and stations with strictly higher discounts (Eq. 1).
    This choice-set restriction is specific to this paper. Real users might switch to stations with lower or equal discounts for other reasons, which would change the effect of any pricing policy.
  • domain assumption User choice follows the multinomial logit with linear utility (Eqs. 2-3) with hand-set weights.
    A common DCM assumption [36], but the specific weights are not estimated from data. The entire policy relies on this model being a faithful representation of user switching behavior.
  • standard math Gumbel-Softmax with temperature 1.0 and GenGS with finite truncation provide unbiased or sufficiently accurate gradients for the discrete simulation.
    Follows from cited work [38-40], but the practical bias at tau=1.0 is not analyzed; the method's convergence claims depend on this approximation being adequate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Dynamic Pricing for Bike-sharing Systems via Differentiable Agent-based Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4F6SS5V6

@misc{pith2026250723344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Dynamic Pricing for Bike-sharing Systems via Differentiable Agent-based Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4F6SS5V6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23344}
}
read the original abstract

Bike-sharing systems are emerging in various cities as a new ecofriendly transportation system. In these systems, spatiotemporally varying user demands lead to imbalanced inventory at bicycle stations, resulting in additional relocation costs. Therefore, it is essential to manage user demand through optimal dynamic pricing for the system. However, optimal pricing design for such a system is challenging because the system involves users with diverse backgrounds and their probabilistic choices. To address this problem, we develop a differentiable agent-based simulation to rapidly design dynamic pricing in bike-sharing systems, achieving balanced bicycle inventory despite spatiotemporally heterogeneous trips and probabilistic user decisions. We first validate our approach against conventional methods through numerical experiments involving 25 bicycle stations and five time slots, yielding 100 parameters. Compared to the conventional methods, our approach obtains a more accurate solution with a 73% to 78% reduction in loss while achieving more than a 100-fold increase in convergence speed. We further validate our approach on a large-scale urban bike-sharing system scenario involving 289 bicycle stations, resulting in a total of 1156 parameters. Through simulations using the obtained pricing policies, we confirm that these policies can naturally induce balanced inventory without any manual relocation. Additionally, we find that the cost of discounts to induce the balanced inventory can be minimized by setting appropriate initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of a dynamic pricing method for user-based relocation in BSS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of trip demand (a) Parameter set for each origin-destination station pair. (b) Illustration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of an example choice set of stations. In this example, choices 1 and 2 are alternative choices to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 for numerical experiments: (a) Layout of stations in Scenario 1. The distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated number of trips between stations each time step without discounts under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated number of bicycle inventories at the final time step without discounts under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated number of bicycle inventories at the final time step without discounts under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heatmap of the loss and the trajectory of the estimation in Scenario 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimated discount parameters for each station at each time step in Scenario 2. These parameters are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated number of trips between stations each time step with estimated discounts under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated number of bicycle inventories at the final time step under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relationship between the number of simulation runs and the changes in the loss in Scenario 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Estimated discount parameters for each station at each time step in Scenario 3. These parameters are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Simulated number of bicycle inventories at the final time step under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Relationship between the number of simulation runs and the changes in loss observed in our method for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Data-driven inventory management and dynamic pricing competition on online marketplaces

    Rainer Schlosser, Carsten Walther, Martin Boissier, and Matthias Uflacker. Data-driven inventory management and dynamic pricing competition on online marketplaces. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 5856–5858. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organizatio...

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/861 2018

  2. [2]

    Aggregate demand-based real-time pricing mechanism for the smart grid: A game- theoretic analysis

    Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, Ramasuri Narayanam, Ramachandra Kota, Pg Mohammad Iskandarbin Pg Hj Petra, and Zainul Charbiwala. Aggregate demand-based real-time pricing mechanism for the smart grid: A game- theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), pages 2554–2560, Jul 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Dynamic pricing techniques for intelligent transportation system in smart cities: A systematic review

    Sandeep Saharan, Seema Bawa, and Neeraj Kumar. Dynamic pricing techniques for intelligent transportation system in smart cities: A systematic review. Computer Communications, 150:603–625, 2020. ISSN 0140-

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Emissions assessment of bike sharing schemes: The case of just eat cycles in edinburgh, uk

    Léa D’Almeida, Tom Rye, and Francesco Pomponi. Emissions assessment of bike sharing schemes: The case of just eat cycles in edinburgh, uk. Sustainable Cities and Society , 71:103012, 2021. ISSN 2210-6707. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103012. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S2210670721002961

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    The bike sharing rebalancing problem with stochastic demands

    Mauro Dell’Amico, Manuel Iori, Stefano Novellani, and Anand Subramanian. The bike sharing rebalancing problem with stochastic demands. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 118:362–380, 2018. ISSN 0191-2615. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.10.015. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0191261518301711. 15 A PREPRINT

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trb.2018.10.015 2018

  6. [6]

    Vallez, Mario Castro, and David Contreras

    Carlos M. Vallez, Mario Castro, and David Contreras. Challenges and opportunities in dock-based bike-sharing rebalancing: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(4), 2021. ISSN 2071-1050. doi:10.3390/su13041829. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1829

    work page doi:10.3390/su13041829 2021

  7. [7]

    Dynamic rebalancing dockless bike-sharing system based on station community discovery

    Jingjing Li, Qiang Wang, Wenqi Zhang, Donghai Shi, and Zhiwei Qin. Dynamic rebalancing dockless bike-sharing system based on station community discovery. In Zhi-Hua Zhou, editor, Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21 , pages 4136–4143. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Org...

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/569 2021

  8. [8]

    Modelling methods for planning and operation of bike-sharing systems

    Rito Brata Nath and Tarun Rambha. Modelling methods for planning and operation of bike-sharing systems. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 99(4):621–645, 2019. doi:10.1007/s41745-019-00134-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s41745-019-00134-8 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Shui and W.Y

    C.S. Shui and W.Y . Szeto. A review of bicycle-sharing service planning problems.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 117:102648, 2020. ISSN 0968-090X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102648. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09680...

    2020

  2. [10]

    A novel simulation based approach for user-based redistribution in bike-sharing system

    Milan Mathew Thomas, Ashish Verma, Sai Kiran Mayakuntla, and Aitichya Chandra. A novel simulation based approach for user-based redistribution in bike-sharing system. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 131:102871, 2024. ISSN 1569-190X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simp...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Real-time pricing optimization for ride-hailing quality of service

    Enpeng Yuan and Pascal Van Hentenryck. Real-time pricing optimization for ride-hailing quality of service. In Zhi-Hua Zhou, editor, Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 3742–3748. International Joint Conference...

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Incentivizing users for balancing bike sharing systems

    Adish Singla, Marco Santoni, Gábor Bartók, Pratik Mukerji, Moritz Meenen, and Andreas Krause. Incentivizing users for balancing bike sharing systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29(1), Feb

  5. [13]

    Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems

    Eric Bonabeau. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99(suppl_3):7280–7287, 2002. doi:10.1073/pnas.082080899. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.082080899

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    Fagnant and Kara M

    Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara M. Kockelman. The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 40:1–13,

  7. [15]

    Improving the sustainability of integrated transportation system with bike-sharing: A spatial agent-based approach

    Miaojia Lu, Shu-Chien Hsu, Pi-Cheng Chen, and Wan-Yu Lee. Improving the sustainability of integrated transportation system with bike-sharing: A spatial agent-based approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41:44– 51, 2018. ISSN 2210-6707. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018...

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Automatic tuning of agent-based models using genetic algorithms

    Benoît Calvez and Guillaume Hutzler. Automatic tuning of agent-based models using genetic algorithms. In Jaime S. Sichman and Luis Antunes, editors, Multi-Agent-Based Simulation VI, pages 41–57, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  9. [17]

    Evaluating Derivatives

    Andreas Griewank and Andrea Walther. Evaluating Derivatives. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, second edition, 2008. doi:10.1137/1.9780898717761. URL https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1. 9780898717761

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Margossian

    Charles C. Margossian. A review of automatic differentiation and its efficient implementation. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 9(4):e1305, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1305. URL https: //wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/widm.1305

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Towards differentiable agent-based simulation

    Philipp Andelfinger. Towards differentiable agent-based simulation. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul., 32(4), jan 2023. ISSN 1049-3301. doi:10.1145/3565810. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3565810

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Aditya Prakash, and Ramesh Raskar

    Ayush Chopra, Alexander Rodríguez, Jayakumar Subramanian, Arnau Quera-Bofarull, Balaji Krishnamurthy, B. Aditya Prakash, and Ramesh Raskar. Differentiable agent-based epidemiology. In Proceedings of the 2023 In- ternational Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent System...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Doyne Farmer, Anisoara Calinescu, and Michael Wooldridge

    Joel Dyer, Arnau Quera-Bofarull, Ayush Chopra, J. Doyne Farmer, Anisoara Calinescu, and Michael Wooldridge. Gradient-assisted calibration for financial agent-based models. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Inter- national Conference on AI in Finance , ICAIF ’23, page 288–296, N...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Inventory rebalancing through pricing in public bike sharing systems

    Zulqarnain Haider, Alexander Nikolaev, Jee Eun Kang, and Changhyun Kwon. Inventory rebalancing through pricing in public bike sharing systems. European Journal of Operational Research , 270(1):103–117, 2018. ISSN 0377-2217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.053. URL h...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Learning with posterior sampling for revenue management under time-varying demand

    Kazuma Shimizu, Junya Honda, Shinji Ito, and Shinji Nakadai. Learning with posterior sampling for revenue management under time-varying demand. In Kate Larson, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 , pages 4...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming

    Martin L Puterman. Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Bandit algorithms

    Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári. Bandit algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    A deep reinforcement learning framework for rebalancing dockless bike sharing systems

    Ling Pan, Qingpeng Cai, Zhixuan Fang, Pingzhong Tang, and Longbo Huang. A deep reinforcement learning framework for rebalancing dockless bike sharing systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01):1393–1400, Jul. 2019. doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Dispatching through pricing: modeling ride- sharing and designing dynamic prices

    Mengjing Chen, Weiran Shen, Pingzhong Tang, and Song Zuo. Dispatching through pricing: modeling ride- sharing and designing dynamic prices. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’19, page 165–171. AAAI Press, 2019. ISBN 9780...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Online learning and pricing with reusable resources: Linear bandits with sub-exponential rewards

    Huiwen Jia, Cong Shi, and Siqian Shen. Online learning and pricing with reusable resources: Linear bandits with sub-exponential rewards. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th Internation...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Online pricing for revenue maximization with unknown time discounting valuations

    Weichao Mao, Zhenzhe Zheng, Fan Wu, and Guihai Chen. Online pricing for revenue maximization with unknown time discounting valuations. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’18, page 440–446. AAAI Press, 2018. ISBN 9780999241127

    2018

  22. [30]

    Wilson, Bryan Lewis, Zakaria Mehrab, Komal K

    Serina Chang, Mandy L. Wilson, Bryan Lewis, Zakaria Mehrab, Komal K. Dudakiya, Emma Pierson, Pang Wei Koh, Jaline Gerardin, Beth Redbird, David Grusky, Madhav Marathe, and Jure Leskovec. Supporting covid-19 policy response with large-scale mobility-based modeling. In Proceedin...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Public health impact of delaying second dose of bnt162b2 or mrna-1273 covid-19 vaccine: simulation agent based modeling study

    Santiago Romero-Brufau, Ayush Chopra, Alex J Ryu, Esma Gel, Ramesh Raskar, Walter Kremers, Karen S Anderson, Jayakumar Subramanian, Balaji Krishnamurthy, Abhishek Singh, Kalyan Pasupathy, Yue Dong, John C O’Horo, Walter R Wilson, Oscar Mitchell, and Thomas C Kingsley. Public h...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Russell R. Barton. Tutorial: Metamodeling for simulation. In 2020 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pages 1102–1116, 2020. doi:10.1109/WSC48552.2020.9384059

    2020

  25. [33]

    Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility analysis, and optimization: A review

    Atharv Bhosekar and Marianthi Ierapetritou. Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility analysis, and optimization: A review. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 108:250–267, 2018. ISSN 0098-1354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.017. URL https://www.scie...

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Thiagarajan, Peer-Timo Bremer, Timothy Germann, Sara Del Valle, and Frederick Streitz

    Rushil Anirudh, Jayaraman J. Thiagarajan, Peer-Timo Bremer, Timothy Germann, Sara Del Valle, and Frederick Streitz. Accurate calibration of agent-based epidemiological models with neural network surrogates. In Peng Xu, Tingting Zhu, Pengkai Zhu, David A. Clifton, Danielle Belg...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity

    Christine Fricker and Nicolas Gast. Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 5(3):261–291, 2016. ISSN 2192-

    2016

  28. [36]

    Kenneth E. Train. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Tzouras, Lambros Mitropoulos, Eirini Stavropoulou, Eleni Antoniou, Katerina Koliou, Christos Karolemeas, Antonis Karaloulis, Konstantinos Mitropoulos, Marilena Tarousi, Eleni I

    Panagiotis G. Tzouras, Lambros Mitropoulos, Eirini Stavropoulou, Eleni Antoniou, Katerina Koliou, Christos Karolemeas, Antonis Karaloulis, Konstantinos Mitropoulos, Marilena Tarousi, Eleni I. Vlahogianni, and Kon- stantinos Kepaptsoglou. Agent-based models for simulating e-sco...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax

    Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkE3y85ee

    2017

  31. [39]

    Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh

    Chris J. Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=S1jE5L5gl

    2017

  32. [40]

    Generalized gumbel-softmax gradient estimator for generic discrete random variables

    Weonyoung Joo, Dongjun Kim, Seungjae Shin, and Il-Chul Moon. Generalized gumbel-softmax gradient estimator for generic discrete random variables. Pattern Recognition Letters, 196:148–155, 2025. ISSN 0167-

    2025

  33. [41]

    SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R J Nelson, Eric J...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary De- Vito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, L...

    2019

  35. [43]

    Enhancing discrete choice models with represen- tation learning

    Brian Sifringer, Virginie Lurkin, and Alexandre Alahi. Enhancing discrete choice models with represen- tation learning. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 140:236–261, 2020. ISSN 0191-2615. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2020.08.006. URL https://www.sciencedir...

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Fully data-driven but interpretable human behavioural modelling with differentiable discrete choice model

    Fumiyasu Makinoshima, Tatsuya Mitomi, Fumiya Makihara, and Eigo Segawa. Fully data-driven but interpretable human behavioural modelling with differentiable discrete choice model. IEEE Access, 13:117420–117429, 2025. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585172. 18

    2025

  37. [2006]

    ISBN 978-3-540-33381-4

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-33381-4. doi:10.1007/11734680_4

    doi

  38. [2014]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001

    ISSN 0968-090X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0968090X13002581

    2013 doi

  39. [2015]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/9251

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9251. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/9251

    doi

  40. [3664]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0140366419310990

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2019.12.003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0140366419310990

    2019 doi

  41. [4376]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2192437620300959

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13676-014-0053-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2192437620300959. 17 A PREPRINT

    doi

  42. [8655]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S016786552500220X

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2025.05.024. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S016786552500220X

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.