1 / 24

Marginal Cost Pricing with a Fixed Error Factor in Traffic Networks

Marginal Cost Pricing with a Fixed Error Factor in Traffic Networks. Guni Sharon, Stephen Boyles, Shani Alkoby , Peter Stone. Our objective. 1 Hr 59 Min. Assign routes to drivers such that the total travel time is reduced. Background.

issac
Download Presentation

Marginal Cost Pricing with a Fixed Error Factor in Traffic Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marginal Cost Pricing with a Fixed Error Factor in Traffic Networks Guni Sharon, Stephen Boyles, Shani Alkoby, Peter Stone

  2. Our objective 1 Hr 59 Min • Assign routes to drivers such that the total travel time is reduced

  3. Background • Previous work showed significant reductions in travel time (up to 46%) when utilizing road pricing • [Mirzaei et al., ITSC-2018; Hanna et al., AAAI-2019; Chen et al., AAAI-2018; Sharon et al., AAMAS-2017] • Why should we care? • In the U.S. alone, congestion cost $305 billion per year (INRIX) • 1% reduction in traffic congestion = saving $billions

  4. Marginal-cost tolls • Each driver pays his “social cost” (how much his existence hurts others) • When applying Marginal-Cost Toll UE and SO align [Pigou 1920; Beckmann et al. 1956; Braess 1969] 1$ delay $1 delay To: turtle $2 toll

  5. Computing MCT • MCT = the marginal delay that each agent will impose on all others • Requires exact knowledge of • Future demand • Roadway capacity conditions • Counterfactual knowledge about traffic conditions without each vehicle • Exact solution is infeasible in real-life

  6. Approximating MCT • A recent line of work proposed feasible MCT approximations • [Sharon et al., 2017, Mirzaei et al., 2018, Hanna et al., 2019] • Known: MCT leads to optimal flow • What guarantees can we give for ~MCT ? Promise me that traffic congestion will never worsen

  7. ~MCT • - actual tolls • - true MCT • - error factor Assuming uniform error What is the system’s performance (TSTT) as a function of ? 1$ delay $1 delay

  8. Generalized cost UE (GUE) • A flow feasible for instance is at generalized cost user equilibrium if and only if for every and with , • Drivers follow paths with equal and minimal generalized cost w.r.t. • The GUE can be solved as a convex program…

  9. GUE as a convex program S.T. • Proof: the appropriate Lagrangian is: • And the resulting KKT conditions imply GUE: GUE is a linear combination between the SO objective and UE objective (Beckman’s formulation)

  10. Attributes of a GUE • Objective: • minimize • Define as the total system travel time at the GUE for error factor = • What is ? • What is ? • What is ?

  11. Error in MCT UE SO

  12. The paper proves: • THEOREM 1. A GUE flow for an approximate MCT scenario exists and is unique • LEMMA 4. where is a UE solution for a scenario in which the latency affiliated with every path equals • LEMMA 5. For any two errors • LEMMA 6. Any two error values satisfy

  13. As a result: UE SO

  14. Our theory is backed empirically DTA

  15. Conclusions: I’m convinced • Underestimating MCT by a constant factor • Traffic will not worsen • Calibrating a parameter that is a multiplier of • E.g., value of time, in Delta-tolling [Sharon et al., 2017] • A local optimum is guaranteed to be a global optimum

  16. Appendix

  17. Non-uniform error? • Charging inaccurate MCT on link 1 (0.5 true MCT) S T fraction of the flow

  18. What can go wrong? • Charging inaccurate MCT on link 1 S T fraction of the flow

  19. Existence of GUE flow • If the GUE objective function is strictly convex then there must exist a GUE solution which is unique • Lets examine the Hessian matrix for our objective function: • Since each term evolves only one variable ( is a constant) our Hessian matrix is a diagonal matrix • Each entry along the diagonal corresponds to one link () and equals:

  20. Existence of GUE flow • by definition of r • ifis strictly increasing • by definition of flow • ifis twice differentiable and convex

  21. Error in MCT • Claim: smaller error () is always better • Theorem: any two error values satisfy and any two error values satisfy • Define where is the GUE flow assuming MCT error • Convince us…

  22. I’ll convince you • Define: • Recall that: • We can rewrite the GUE objective function as: • Consider two GUE flows and • minimizes the objective function at • for any feasible and specifically

  23. Smaller error is better • if and • In a similar way: • if and • We get: if and and

  24. Smaller error is better • We got: if and and • Else if and and : • is continuous and strictly increasing for and for so for any within one of the continuous intervals • So: • for • for

More Related