Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 741–763 | Cite as

A solution methodology for carpooling systems based on double auctions and cooperative coevolutionary particle swarms

  • Fu-Shiung HsiehEmail author
  • Fu-Min Zhan
  • Yi-Hong Guo
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Although carpooling provides a way to achieve higher efficiency and lower costs of a transport system by grouping people and sharing cars or vehicles in use, it is still not widely accepted. Several studies indicate that cost savings and timeliness are the main incentives for acceptance of the carpooling business model. However, existing studies are deficient in supporting operations of carpooling business model from specifying the requirements of drivers and passengers, matching drivers with passengers to allocating cost savings among ridesharing participants. A pragmatic solution methodology to maximize cost savings while respecting timing constraints and allocate cost savings in carpooling systems is a critical factor for ensuring the success of carpooling business model. The problem to maximize cost savings subject to capacity constraints and timing constraints can be formulated as an integer programming problem. Although there are several works for solving carpooling problems based on metaheuristic approaches, existing studies on application of metaheuristic approaches in carpooling problems are still limited. Motivated by deficiencies of existing studies discussed above, this paper aims to (1) propose a carpooling model based on double auctions, (2) formulate the carpooling problem and develop a discrete cooperative coevolving particle swarm optimization (DCCPSO) algorithm to solve the problem (3) propose a cost savings allocation scheme to benefit ridesharing participants (4) study the influence of detour distance constraints on performance and (5) study the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm by comparing with other metaheuristic algorithms through experiments. Simulation results indicate that the proposed DCCPSO algorithm significantly outperforms several existing algorithms in solving the carpooling problem.

Keywords

Carpool Auctions Meta-heuristic algorithm Particle swarm optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is currently supported in part by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan under Grant MOST 106-2410-H-324-002-MY2.

References

  1. 1.
    Baldacci R, Maniezzo V, Mingozzi A (2004) An exact method for the car pooling problem based on Lagrangean column generation. Oper Res 52(3):422–439CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maniezzo V, Carbonaro A, Hildmann H (2004) An ants heuristic for the long-term car pooling problem. In: Onwubolu G, Babu BV (eds) New optimization techniques in engineering, pp 412–429Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marletto G (2014) Car and the city: socio-technical transition pathways to 2030. Technol Forecast Soc Change 87:164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furuhata M, Dessouky M, Ordóñez F, Brunet M, Wang X, Koenig S (2013) Ridesharing: the state-of-the-art and future directions. Transp Res B Methodol 57:28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agatz N, Erera A, Savelsbergh M, Wang X (2012) Optimization for dynamic ridesharing: a review. Eur J Oper Res 223(2):295–303CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Piscataway, NJ, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Galland AI, El-Hawary ME, Sallam AA (2001) Swarming of intelligent particles for solving the nonlinear constrained optimization problem. Eng Intell Syst Electr Eng Commun 9(3):155–163Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2000) Cooperative learning in neural network using particle swarm optimizers. South African Comput J 26:84–90Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tasgetiren MF, Sevkli M, Liang YC, Gencyilmaz G (2004) Particle swarm optimization algorithm for single machine total weighted tardiness problem. In: Proc IEEE Congress Evolutionary comput, vol 2, pp 1412–1419Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1997) A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm, 1997. IEEE Int Conf Syst, Man, Cybern: Comput Cybern Simul 5:4104–4108Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vesterstrom J, Thomsen R (2004) A comparative study of differential evolution, particle swarm optimization, and evolutionary algorithms on numerical benchmark problems. Proc 2004 Congress Evolutionary Comput 2:1980–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2004) A Cooperative approach to particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Comput 8(3):225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potter MA, De Jong KA (1994) A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. Lect Notes Comput Sci 866:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang Z, Ke T, Yao X (2008) Large scale evolutionary optimization using cooperative coevolution. Inform Sci 178(15):2985–2999MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li X, Yao X (2012) Cooperatively coevolving particle swarms for large scale optimization. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Comput 16(2):210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsieh F-S (2017) Car pooling based on trajectories of drivers and requirements of passengers. In: IEEE 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, pp 972–978Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hsieh F-S, Zhan F-M, Guo Y-H (2017) Car pooling based on a metaheuristic approach. In: 30th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA/AIE 2017), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 10350, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ravindran A, Ragsdell KM, Reklaitis GV (2007) Engineering optimization: methods and applications, Second Edition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deb K (2004) Optimization for engineering design: algorithms and examples. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2-4):311– 338CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Banitalebi A, Aziz Mohd IA, Aziz ZA (2016) A self-adaptive binary differential evolution algorithm for large scale binary optimization problems. Inform Sci 367-368:487–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruglieri M, Ciccarelli D, Colorni A, Luè A (2011) Poliunipool: a carpooling system for universities. Procedia - Soc Behavioral Sci 20:558–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agatz Niels AH, Erera Alan L, Savelsbergh MWP, Wang X (2011) Dynamic ride-sharing: a simulation study in Metro Atlanta. Transp Res B Methodol 45(9):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elbery A, ElNainay M, Chen F, Chang-Tien L, Kendall J (2013) A carpooling recommendation system based on social VANET and geo-social data. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (SIGSPATIAL’13). ACM, New York, pp 556– 559Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cici B, Markopoulou A, Frias-Martinez E, Laoutaris N (2014) Assessing the potential of ride-sharing using mobile and social data: a tale of four cities. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’14). ACM, New York, pp 201–211Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bicocchi N, Mamei M (2014) Investigating ride sharing opportunities through mobility data analysis. Pervasive Mobile Comput 14:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruck BP, Incerti V, Iori M, Vignoli M (2017) Minimizing CO emissions in a practical daily carpooling problem. Comput Oper Res 81:40–50MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Santos DO, Xavier EC (2015) Taxi and ride sharing: a dynamic dial-a-ride problem with money as an incentive. Expert Syst Appl 42(19):6728–6737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nourinejad M, Roorda MJ (2016) Agent based model for dynamic ridesharing. Trans Res Part C: Emerg Technol 64:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stiglic M, Agatz N, Savelsbergh M, Gradisar M (2016) Making dynamic ride-sharing work: the impact of driver and rider flexibility. Trans Res Part E: Logistics Trans Rev 91:190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Herbawi W, Weber M (2011) Evolutionary multi-objective route planning in dynamic multi-hop ridesharing. Evol Comput Combin Optim 6622:84–95Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheikh SB, Hammadi S, Tahon C (2015) Agent-based evolutionary cooperative approach for dynamic multi-hop ridematching problem. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3):887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cheikh SB, Hammadi S (2016) Multi-hop ridematching optimization problem: intelligent chromosome agent-driven approach. Expert Syst Appl 62:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shete A, Bhandare V, Londhe L (2015) Intelligent carpooling system. Int J Comput Appl 118(4):26–31Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Herbawi WM, Weber M (2012) A genetic and insertion heuristic algorithm for solving the dynamic ridematching problem with time windows. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference of Genetic Evolutionary Computation, pp 385–392Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eberhart C, Yuhui R, Yuhui S (1998) Comparison between genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1447:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hassan R, Cohanim B, De Weck O (2005) A Comparison of Particle Swarm Optimization and the Genetic Algorithm.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-1897
  38. 38.
    Satunin S, Babkin E (2014) A multi-agent approach to Intelligent Transportation Systems modeling with combinatorial auctions. Expert Syst Appl 41(15):6622–6633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khan SA, Engelbrecht AP (2012) A fuzzy particle swarm optimization algorithm for computer communication network topology design. Appl Intell 36:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olivera AC, Garcia-Nieto JM, Alba E (2015) Reducing vehicle emissions and fuel consumption in the city by using particle swarm optimization. Appl Intell 42(3):389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hsieh F-S, Liao C-S (2015) Scalable multi-agent learning algorithms to determine winners in combinatorial double auctions. Appl Intell 43(2):308–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xia M, Stallaert J, Whinston AB (2005) Solving the combinatorial double auction problem. Eur J Oper Res 164(1):239–251CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guajardoa M, Ronnqvist M (2016) A review on cost allocation methods in collaborative transportation. Int Trans Oper Res 23(3):371–392MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. Annal Math Stud 28:307–317MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kalai E (1977) Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: intertemporal utility comparisons. Econometrica 45(7):1623–1630MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmeidler D (1969) The nucleolus of a characteristic function game. SIAM J Appl Math 17(6):1163–1170MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fatima SS, Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (2008) A linear approximation method for the Shapley value. Artif Intell 172(14):1673–1699MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boughaci D (2010) A differential evolution algorithm for the winner determination problem in combinatorial auctions. Electron Notes Discrete Math 36:535–542CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wang F, Zhang H, Li K, Lin Z, Yang J, Shen XL (2018) A hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm using adaptive learning strategy. Inf Sci 436-437:162–177MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chen Y, Li L, Peng H, Xiao J, Wu Q (2018) Dynamic multi-swarm differential learning particle swarm optimizer. Swarm Evol Comput 39:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cao L, Xu L, Goodman ED (2018) A neighbor-based learning particle swarm optimizer with short-term and long-term memory for dynamic optimization problems. Inf Sci 453:463–485MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringChaoyang University of TechnologyTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations