1 / 24

On-demand Service Propositions: A Supply-Demand Ratio Aware Broker for On-demand Services

A collaboration between Ford University Research Program and University of Minnesota to develop a broker that identifies real-time opportunities for commerce among mobile consumers and service providers, maximizing the supply-demand ratio.

rditullio
Download Presentation

On-demand Service Propositions: A Supply-Demand Ratio Aware Broker for On-demand Services

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. On-demand Service Propositions: A Supply-Demand Ratio Aware Broker for On-demand Services A collaboration between Ford University Research Program and University of Minnesota University PI: Shashi Shekhar Ford PI: Shounak Athavale

  2. Outline • Motivation • Problem Definition • Toy Example • Challenges • Related Work • Proposed Approach • Contributions • Experimental Setup and Preliminary Results

  3. Motivation • Increasing proliferation of mobile technologies (e.g., smart phones) led to emerging on-demand and sharing economy • resources to satisfy peak demand but are otherwise poorly utilized • Several success stories (e.g. Uber, Lyft, AirBnB) • Benefits of Sharing Economy/Collaborative Consumption: • increasing access while reducing investments in resources • e.g. reduction in road and parking infrastructure, freeing up land • improving consumer welfare (new on-demand services) while reducing societal costs (e.g. emissions, fuel consumption) • Need to investigate a broker that can identify real-time opportunities for commerce among (mobile) consumers and service providers • Satisfies consumers constraints, meets larger demand with a better supply management

  4. Problem Definition: On-demand Service Propositions • Input: • A set of service providers. Each provider is defined using: • Location coordinates • Service rate over the day (e.g. 5/hr in rush hours, 10/hr in non-rush hours) • A set R of consumer requests arriving dynamically R = {ri= (time, current location li, direction of motion, max. acceptable travel distance, max. acceptable waiting time before service)} • k: number of required propositions • ttimeout : timeout interval length • Output: k service provider(s) propositions and estimated service/pick-up time(s) for each riϵ R • Objective: • Maximize number of matched requests • Constraints: • Service provider propositions matched to a consumer request should satisfy his max..time before service and the max. travel distance constraint along his direction of motion. • Propositions from each service provider should not exceed its supply rate. • Keeping the eco-system alive by engaging many service providers and balancing their matched requests. • Providing a real-time response to consumers

  5. Toy Example Input: Output:

  6. Challenges • Need to satisfy conflicting requirements: • Broker needs to maximize the number of matched requests while keeping the eco-system alive by engaging many service providers. • Conflicting requirements of consumers (minimizing travel distance and waiting times) and service providers (maximizing the number of consumers assign • Ratio of demand to supply exhibits spatio-temporal heterogeneity • Hence, a matching strategy that works well for a given time and/or location may not work as well for other times or locations with different supply-demand ratios. • Given a number of consumer requests and their candidate propositions at time t, finding the set of K-propositions that maximizes the matching size is an NP-Hard problem [GeoTruCrowd, 2013]

  7. Limitations of Related Work Matching accounts for unbalanced supply and demand No Yes Least Travel Cost (spatial crowdsourcing, ridesharing) [11,10, 5,17,1,3, 6, 8,13] Least Location Entropy Priority (spatial crowdsourcing) [10] Proposed work

  8. Modeling consumer and broker interactions: An Agent-based Simulation Framework Event types: Consumer arrival, Proposition acceptance Acceptance events time <= current clock Arrival events E with time <= current clock Output Simulation Statistics Find all candidate propositions satisfying consumers of events E Update availability of producers accordingly Match consumers with candidate propositions Spatio-temporal Specific Matching Policies Update availability of matched producers & generate acceptance events

  9. Proposed Approach • We propose a greedy approximation algorithm with novel matching heuristics: • Service providers-favoring policy • Least_Accepted_First: Prioritize providers with least number of completed transactions so far • for balancing requests among providers • Least_Appearance_As_Candidate: Prioritize providers with least number of occurrences in all candidate lists • favors providers newly entering the system and providers in less populated regions. • Broker-favoring Heuristics: • Least_Service_Time_First: Prioritize providers with less service time (i.e. more available capacity) • to maximize matching size for future incoming requests • Consumer-favoring Heuristics: • Highest_Dominating _First : Prioritize near providers with smaller waiting times. • Propositions for each consumer are given scores equal to the number of (travel distance, waiting time) pairs they dominate

  10. Execution Trace (1/4) Input: Output:

  11. Execution Trace (2/4) Input: Output:

  12. Execution Trace (3/4) Input: Output:

  13. Execution Trace (4/4) Input: Output:

  14. Experimental Setup (1/3) • Experimental Goals: • Self analysis:What is the effect of varying the different parameters on the performance of the proposed approach? • Comparative Analysis: How does the performance of the proposed heuristics compare to the Least Travel Cost and Least Location Entropy strategies? • Datasets: • Synthetic Data generation with real-data characteristics: • Generate supply rates, consumer distances & time constraints • Simulate a fixed demand-supply ratio r: For each hour, use real service provider locations (120 restaurants in Minneapolis) and generate a number of requests that satisfies the ratio. • For lunch hours: demand/requests generated from locations proportional to nodes day population. • For dinner hours: demand locations are generated in proportion to nodes night population.

  15. Experimental Setup (2/3) • Candidate Algorithms: • Least Travel Cost • Least Location Entropy (Consumers, Providers) • Least Accepted First • Least Candidate First • Least Service Time First • Most Dominating First • Parameters (default value): • Demand/Supply ratio (1) • K: number of required propositions (3) • tTimeout : timeout interval (1 min) • Service rates [5 req/hr : 15 req/hr] • Travel distance constraint [4000m:12000]m • Maximal time before service constraint [5min:15min] • grid cell length (100m) • Metrics: (simulation statistics)

  16. Experimental Setup: Simulation Statistics (3/3) • Broker centric: • % of completed transactions • % of matched requests • Throughput (i.e. handled requests per unit time) • Total execution time • Consumer centric: • Average query response time (until propositions are displayed) • Average waiting time per request • Average distance detour per request • Average time before service per request • Producer centric: • % of producers with completed transactions • % of matched producers • Avg. number of assigned/accepted consumers per provider • Standard deviation of the number of assigned/accepted consumers per provider

  17. Preliminary Results (1/5): Percentage of matched Requests

  18. Preliminary Results (2/5): Percentage of matched Providers

  19. Preliminary Results (3/5): Average No. of matched Requests Per Provider

  20. Preliminary Results (4/5): STDEV of matched requests per provider

  21. Preliminary Results (5/5): Avg. travel distance/waiting time before service

  22. Contributions • Formally define the problem of On-demand Service propositions. • Proposed novel heuristics for balancing the conflicting requirements of the broker, consumers and service providers using a greedy approach. • Employed an agent-based simulation framework for modeling the interactions between consumers and the broker. Using this framework, we simulated complete transactions involving the arrival of a consumer request, receiving service propositions and the acceptance of a specific proposition within a timeout interval. • Evaluated the proposed approach using dataset with real-world characteristics. Our results showed that. • Performance and dominance zones of the proposed matching heuristics vary with the variation of the supply-demand ratio • A supply-demand ratio-aware broker is needed to select the best matching policy

  23. Thank you.

More Related