1 / 28

280 likes | 383 Vues

Supply-Demand Ratio and On-Demand Spatial Service Brokers: How to Keep the Eco-system Alive?. A collaboration between Ford University Research Program and University of Minnesota. U of M: Shashi Shekhar. Ford: Shounak Athavale Eric Marsman. Basic Concepts.

Télécharger la présentation
## Supply-Demand Ratio and On-Demand Spatial Service Brokers: How to Keep the Eco-system Alive?

**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

**Supply-Demand Ratio and On-Demand Spatial Service**Brokers:How to Keep the Eco-system Alive? A collaboration between Ford University Research Program and University of Minnesota U of M: Shashi Shekhar Ford: Shounak Athavale Eric Marsman**Basic Concepts**• Service Provider: A provider registered in the system is defined using its location and service time • Consumer Request: A request for from a mobile consumer, including the consumer’s current location, max. acceptable travel time and max. acceptable waiting time before service. • Service Provider Proposition: A quadruple (r, p, d, w) where: • r ϵ set of available consumer requests • p ϵ set of registered service providers • d: travel time between r and p • w: waiting time before r is served by p Example: (C1, P1, 2 min, 5 min) • Service Provider Utilization ui: Ratio between number of propositions accepted at provider Pi and total service rate of Pi (1/service time)**Problem Definition: On-Demand Spatial Service Propositions**• Input: • A set P of service providers • A set R of consumer requests arriving dynamically • A number of required propositions K • Output: Up toK service provider(s) propositions for each request • Objectives: • Broker-centric: Maximize number of matched requests and consumer’s propositions • Provider-centric: Maximizing fairness to providers (utilization entropy) • Consumer-centric: Minimize consumer’s waiting and travel times • Constraints: • Each returned proposition satisfies the consumer’s max. travel time and waiting time constraints • Each returned proposition and does not violate the provider’s service time constraint.**Challenges**• Need to satisfy many conflicting requirements of the broker, consumers and service providers: • Broker needs to maximize the number of matched requests while balancing provider utilization • Conflicting requirements of consumers (minimizing travel and waiting times) and service providers (maximizing the number of consumers assignment) • Ratio of demand to supply exhibits spatio-temporal heterogeneity • Consumers requests are unknown in advance • Maximizing matching at each time t does not guarantee an overall maximal matching/provider balance**TKDE Contributions**• We propose an Integer Programming formulation for maximizing matching size while balancing consumers utilization • We propose a supply/supply-demand ratio aware greedy approach for scaling up the matching for a large number of consumers. • We experimentally evaluate our results using synthetic data with real-world characteristics.**Integer Programming Formulation: Maximizing matching size**(1/5) 1 • Decision Variables:**Integer Programming Formulation (2/5)**Constraints: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Assuming a single server per provider: (7) (8)**Objective Function (3/5)**Objective 1: Optimize for matching size and consumers propositions Objective 2:Optimize provider fairness (number of engaged providers, balanced utilization) Option 1: Maximize Shannon's diversity index for provider utilization (Entropy) Where rjis number of requests accepted at Pj uj is utilization of provider j Option 2: Maximize sum of provider utilization with concave returns:**Objective Function (4/5)**C) Using a Weighted sum of multiple objective functions: F1 = F1n: F1/ [n x SQRT (K)] (Normalized between 0 and 1) F2= F2n: F2/ m (Normalized between 0 and 1) Objective: Maximize α F1n+ βF2n α and β are scalar values whose sum = 1**Integer Programming Formulation (5/5)**For n consumers, m providers, T time units: • Number of (integer) variables: O (n m T) • Number of constraints: O (n m T) • 1: n x m T • 2: n • 3: n x m • 4: n x m • 5: n x m • 6: n x m • 7: m x T • 8: n x m For n =1, m= 120, T=26: O(3 x 103) variables and constraints • For 1st iteration (clock = 0): did not terminate after 30 minutes • Experimental results shown for m=10 providers**Greedy Approach: Supply/Supply-Demand-Ratio Aware Heuristic**• Intuition: IWCTS Least Accepted First (LAF) and Least Appearance as Candidate First (LCF) heuristics only considered total number of previous matches/occurrences of a provider, but not its supply Limitations: • Does not balance utilization (i.e. providers with low demand are favored even if they have near full utilization) • May fail to maximize future balance as they do not consider spatiotemporal heterogeneity of demand (e.g. changes in day/night population) and thus providers with decreasing demand may eventually be under utilized • Greedy Approach: • Identify candidate providers for each consumer • Sort consumers table by least # candidates first (tie breaker: shortest waiting time first) • For each consumer, apply provider-balancing heuristic: • Prioritize least utilized providers to balance providers utilization • Prioritize providers with highest recent supply-demand ratio over a moving time horizon • Use K greedy iterations to assign up to K propositions per consumer**Experimental Setup (1/2)**• Goals: • Evaluate performance of Integer Program for different weights • Compare performance of related work to proposed work: • Related Work: • Nearest Neighbor (NN) • Least Location Entropy (LLEP) • IWCTS: Least Accepted First () • IWCTS: Least appearance as Candidate First (LCF) • Proposed Work: • Integer Program (IP) • Least Utilized First (LUF) • Highest Supply-Demand Ratio First (HSDR) • Least Utilized First with Highest Supply-Demand Ratio First as Tie Breaker (LUF + HSDR)**Experimental Setup (2/2)**• Simulation Metrics: • Broker Centric (Matching size): • Execution time • % matched consumers (and #matched consumers) • Total # propositions • Sum of consumers propositions with concave returns • Provider Centric: • % matched providers (and # matched providers) • Standard deviation (STDEV) of provider utilization • Utilization entropy (combined) • Average of the lowest 10% provider utilizations • Simulation Parameters: • M=10, K = 3 propositions, Timeout = 2 min, Provider service rate ϵ [5,15] req/hour • Max. accep. travel time ϵ [10 min, 25 min] , Max. accep. waiting time ϵ [15min, 30min]**Execution Times Comparison (sec)**Trends: For supply<<demand, NN best but all are comparable All heuristics have comparable execution times. Integer program does not scale well for for larger number of consumers (n=10,000, m=10)**Integer Optimization Results: # Matched Consumers**Trends: At w1=0.25, w2=0.75 we get best results for balanced supply-demand and for supply>>demand we get a comparable performance to the best (at w1=1, w2=0)**Integer Optimization Results: # Propositions**Trends: (w1=0.25, w2=0.75) achieves the maximum number of propositions**Integer Optimization Results: # matched providers**Trends: All weight combinations achieves the same number of matched providers**Integer Optimization Results: STDEV provider utilization &**utilization Entropy Trends: STDEV and entropy of provider utilization show comparable performance across all weight combinations. Reason maybe that fairness objective does not optimize utilization balance**Integer Optimization Results: Objective Value**Trends: (w1=0.25, w2=0.27) consistently performs better in terms of fairness objective and in matching size for balanced case. Also gives comparable matching size to best in the case of supply>>demand**Matching Size Result 1: Effect of SDR on % Matched Consumers**Trends: For supply<<demand, NN best but all are comparable For supply==demand, new proposed LUF performs best For supply>>demand: all heuristics are comparable. IP performs worst. Reason: maybe matching at arbitrary times rather than minimizing wait times.**Matching Size Result 2: Effect of SDR on total #**propositions • Trends: (consistent with matching size) • For supply<<demand, NN performs best • For supply==demand, proposed LUF performs best • For supply>>demand: all heuristics are comparable.**Fairness Result 1: Effect of SDR on % Matched Providers**Trends: For most values of SDR, all heuristics engage all providers ( small number of providers) For supply>>>demand, provider centric heuristics perform better (IWCTS and proposed work) Interesting: although IP achieves same matching size at SDR=50, it engages less providers than LUF proposed heuristic**Fairness Result 2: Effect of SDR on STDEV of provider**utilization • Trends: • Proposed heuristics perform best for supply>>demand. • IP performs best at balanced supply and demand while proposed heuristics give comparable results. • LCF performed best when demand>>supply**Fairness Result 3: Effect of SDR on Utilization Entropy**• Trends: • For supply<<demand and supply=demand, all heuristics are comparable. • For supply>>demand, LUF and Tiebreaker perform best.**Fairness Result 4: Effect of SDR on Avg. lowest 10% of**provider utilization • Trends: • For supply<<demand, all heuristics are comparable • For supply=demand and supply>>demand, LUF and tiebreaker, performbetterthan others.**Next Steps**• Improve Integer Programming Model: • Incorporate minimization of waiting times in objective function • Investigate other standard solver for utilization entropy objective • Consider conflicting candidates in matching in proposed heuristics

More Related