Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
2.
Faculty of Electrical, Computer and IT Engineering, Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
3.
Research and Development Center of Transport Industry of Self-driving Technology, China Merchants Chongqing Communications Research & Design Institute Co. Ltd., Chongqing, China
Received:
10 September 2022
Revised:
23 November 2022
Accepted:
27 November 2022
Published:
12 December 2022
Bike-sharing systems are widely operated in many cities as green transportation means to solve the last mile problem and reduce traffic congestion. One of the critical challenges in operating high-quality bike-sharing systems is rebalancing bike stations from being full or empty. However, the complex characteristics of spatiotemporal dependency on usage demand may lead to difficulties for traditional statistical models in dealing with this complex relationship. To address this issue, we propose a graph-based neural network model to learn the representation of bike-sharing demand spatial-temporal graph. The model has the ability to use graph-structured data and takes both spatial- and temporal aspects into consideration. A case study about bike-sharing systems in Nanjing, a large city in China, is conducted based on the proposed method. The results show that the algorithm can predict short-term bike demand with relatively high accuracy and low computing time. The predicted errors for the hourly station level usage demand prediction are often within 20 bikes. The results provide helpful tools for short-term usage demand prediction of bike-sharing systems and other similar shared mobility systems.
Citation: Ruo Jia, Richard Chamoun, Alexander Wallenbring, Masoomeh Advand, Shanchuan Yu, Yang Liu, Kun Gao. A spatio-temporal deep learning model for short-term bike-sharing demand prediction[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1031-1047. doi: 10.3934/era.2023051
Related Papers:
[1]
Zhiyuan Wang, Chu Zhang, Shaopei Xue, Yinjie Luo, Jun Chen, Wei Wang, Xingchen Yan .
Dynamic coordinated strategy for parking guidance in a mixed driving parking lot involving human-driven and autonomous vehicles. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 523-550.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024026
[2]
Xiaoying Zheng, Jing Wu, Xiaofeng Li, Junjie Huang .
UAV search coverage under priority of important targets based on multi-location domain decomposition. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2491-2513.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024115
[3]
Yu Shen, Hecheng Li .
A multi-strategy genetic algorithm for solving multi-point dynamic aggregation problems with priority relationships of tasks. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 445-472.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024022
[4]
Sida Lin, Lixia Meng, Jinlong Yuan, Changzhi Wu, An Li, Chongyang Liu, Jun Xie .
Sequential adaptive switching time optimization technique for maximum hands-off control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2229-2250.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024101
[5]
Ismail Ben Abdallah, Yassine Bouteraa, Saleh Mobayen, Omar Kahouli, Ali Aloui, Mouldi Ben Amara, Maher JEBALI .
Fuzzy logic-based vehicle safety estimation using V2V communications and on-board embedded ROS-based architecture for safe traffic management system in hail city. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 5083-5103.
doi: 10.3934/era.2023260
[6]
Jian Gong, Yuan Zhao, Jinde Cao, Wei Huang .
Platoon-based collision-free control for connected and automated vehicles at non-signalized intersections. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(4): 2149-2174.
doi: 10.3934/era.2023111
[7]
Hao Li, Zhengwu Wang, Shuiwang Chen, Weiyao Xu, Lu Hu, Shuai Huang .
Integrated optimization of planning and operation of a shared automated electric vehicle system considering the trip selection and opportunity cost. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 41-71.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024003
[8]
Wenjie Wang, Suzhen Wen, Shen Gao, Pengyi Lin .
A multi-objective dynamic vehicle routing optimization for fresh product distribution: A case study of Shenzhen. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2897-2920.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024132
[9]
Yineng Ouyang, Zhaotao Liang, Zhihui Ma, Lei Wang, Zhaohua Gong, Jun Xie, Kuikui Gao .
A class of constrained optimal control problems arising in an immunotherapy cancer remission process. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(10): 5868-5888.
doi: 10.3934/era.2024271
[10]
Michael Barg, Amanda Mangum .
Statistical analysis of numerical solutions to constrained phase separation problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(1): 229-250.
doi: 10.3934/era.2023012
Abstract
Bike-sharing systems are widely operated in many cities as green transportation means to solve the last mile problem and reduce traffic congestion. One of the critical challenges in operating high-quality bike-sharing systems is rebalancing bike stations from being full or empty. However, the complex characteristics of spatiotemporal dependency on usage demand may lead to difficulties for traditional statistical models in dealing with this complex relationship. To address this issue, we propose a graph-based neural network model to learn the representation of bike-sharing demand spatial-temporal graph. The model has the ability to use graph-structured data and takes both spatial- and temporal aspects into consideration. A case study about bike-sharing systems in Nanjing, a large city in China, is conducted based on the proposed method. The results show that the algorithm can predict short-term bike demand with relatively high accuracy and low computing time. The predicted errors for the hourly station level usage demand prediction are often within 20 bikes. The results provide helpful tools for short-term usage demand prediction of bike-sharing systems and other similar shared mobility systems.
1.
Introduction
The vehicle routing problem (VRP) is a class of problems that entails finding an optimal set of routes for a fleet of vehicles to serve a set of customers. The objective of the VRP is to minimize vehicle routes costs while originating and terminating at a depot. The VRP was first proposed by Dantzig and Ramser [1] before being extended with different variants: the VRP with time window (VRPTW) [2,3,4,5,6,7], the capacitated VRP (CVRP) [8,9,10,11,12] and other VRPs [13,14,15,16,17]. In recent years, the VRPs have attracted much interest [18]. Exact solutions of the VRPs generally result in branch-and-price [13,19], branch-and-cut [20,21,22] and branch-cut-and-price algorithms [22,23]. Ben Ticha et al. [24,25,26] proposed well-performing branch-and-price algorithms for VRPs on multigraphs with multiple time-related attributes and a homogeneous vehicle fleet. In such approaches, the linear relaxation in each branch-and-bound node is by solved column generation, which has proved to be a powerful approach [9,27,28]. Column generation has been widely used to solve a variety of large mathematical programs such as vehicle routing and crew scheduling problems [3,29,30].
Many authors have suggested solving a shortest path problem with resource constraints (SPPRC) introduced by Desrochers [31] as a multi-dimensional generalization of the shortest path problem with time windows. Resolutions methods and applications of the SPPRC have been extensively discussed in the literature [3,29,31,32,33]. These strategies range from exact methods to heuristics and meta-heuristics.
Exact SPPRC resolution techniques usually use the dynamic programming which has a pseudopolynomial complexity. Desrochers and Soumis [32] proposed a label correcting reaching algorithm that extends the Ford-Bellman algorithm to take resource constraints into account. The algorithm has been shown to be successful for tight resource constraints. Feillet et al. [34] adapted the Desrochers algorithm to solve exactly the ESPPRC (SPPRC with elementary path) pricing problems in the context of the VRPTW. Since that, this algorithm has been the backbone of a number of algorithms based on column generation applied to several important problems such as vehicle routing and crew management [16,26]. Table 1 summarizes some reviewed literature that applied column-generation for VRPs as classified based on solution approaches used for solving the sub-problem (SPPRC or ESPPRC).
Table 1.
Summary of some papers based on the sub-problem solution method.
The main drawback of exact resolution techniques is the computational time which increases with the number of resources, making them suitable for small-scale problems only. To speed up the computations and obtain solutions in a reasonable time, some authors proposed approximate, heuristics and meta-heuristics techniques [14,18,50,51,52,53,54,55]. These algorithms yield near-optimal solutions and are more suitable for real-life larger-scale applications (e.g., thousands of customers from, dozens of depots with numerous vehicles subject to a variety of constraints). Nagih and Soumis [14] proposed a basic heuristic to quickly produce feasible solutions. But, this approach has been limited to acyclic graphs and its speed has not been proved. Some authors have used simulated annealing [56], genetic algorithms [52,53], non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms [54] and simplified swarm optimization [55]. Meta-heuristic methods allows to avoid getting trapped in local optima but this comes at a price of slower convergence.
In this paper, we propose a Lagrangian relaxation based algorithm to approximately solve the SPPRC for arbitrary, acyclic and cyclic graphs. In our approach, called "dominance on Lagrangian cost for the SPPRC" (DLC-SPPRC), a dominance is expressed on a subset of the resources while the rest of the resources are dualized in the objective. Optimized parameter update schemes are used to ensure better performances (descent steps, Lagrange multipliers, subgradients).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes formally the SPPRC. Section 3 presents our approximate solution method that speeds up the computations while keeping a good approximate solution. In Section 4, we present an application to column generation and show the results obtained for various VRP datasets. The paper ends with the final conclusions.
2.
SPPRC
2.1. Notations and preliminaries
Consider a graph G=(V,A), where V=N∪{o,d} is a set of nodes N={v1,…,vn} that would be visited from an origin o=v0 to a destination d=vn+1 and a set of arcs A⊂V×V. We denote by R a set of resources of cardinality |R|. An arc (i,j)∈A costs cij and consumes a quantity trij≥0 of each resource r∈R. We suppose that the resources satisfy the triangle inequality. If (i,j)∈A, then the node i is called a predecessor of j and j is called a successor of i. A path is a finite sequence of nodes
To each node vj of P, we associate CPj which is the sum of the costs of its composite arcs up to vj. We denote by Tr,Pj the amount of resource r∈R used to reach the node vj. For the sake of simplification, we drop the index P from these notations and write Cj and Trj. The path P is said to be feasible if it satisfies the resource constraints
Trki∈[arki,brki],∀r∈R,∀i∈{0,..,m}.
A path P can also be represented by X=(xij)(i,j)∈A∈{0,1}, where xij=1 if the nodes vi and vj belong to P, and 0 otherwise.
2.2. Problem formulation
The SPPRC seeks a feasible path from the origin to the destination with a minimal cost. Similar to [3], one can formulate the SPPRC as follows:
minimizeX∑(i,j)∈Acijxij
(2.1)
subject to
∑(i,j)∈Axij−∑(i,j)∈Axji=0,∀i∈V∖{o,d},
(2.2)
∑(o,j)∈Axoj=1;∑(i,d)∈Axid=1,
(2.3)
xij(Tri+trij−Trj)≤0,∀(i,j)∈A,∀r∈R,
(2.4)
arj≤Trj≤brj,∀j∈V,∀r∈R,
(2.5)
xij∈{0,1},∀(i,j)∈A,
(2.6)
where X=(xij)i,j represents a path solution. Eqs (2.2) and (2.3) define the flow constraints on the graph; Eq (2.4) encodes the compatibility requirements between flow and time variables, and Eq (2.5) is the time windows constraint. If the problem is feasible, then there exists an optimal solution [14].
2.3. Algorithms
To solve the SPPRC, labeling algorithms have been efficiently applied by many authors, e.g., Desrochers and Soumis [32], Dabia et al. [13] and Sun et al. [57,58]. Labels are defined for each node to encode partial paths, along with their cost and resource consumption. Each node receives labels and then extend them toward every possible successor node. The algorithm iteratively treats the nodes until no new labels are created.
To limit the proliferation of labels and reduce the computational time, dominance rules are introduced. Dominance relation is a partial ordering applied to eliminate non optimal solutions and retain only non dominated labels. The number of retained labels and, thus, the computation time, increase with the number of resources.
In the next section, we propose an algorithm to determine approximate solutions. The size of the search space is reduced by eliminating some labels with a heuristic dominance procedure.
3.
Lagrange SPPRC label correcting algorithm
With each path Pi arriving to a node vi, we associate a label (or state) vector
Li=(Ci,T1i;⋯;T|R|i).
(3.1)
The path associated to a label L is denoted by XL. The path P is extended to each successor vj with
Cj=Ci+cijandTrj=max{arj,Tri+trij},∀r∈R.
(3.2)
Let Pi and P′i be two feasible paths arriving to a node vi. We say that Pi is dominated by P′i and we write Pi⪯P′i if the label vector of Pi is component-wise less than the one of P′i. On the other hand, we say that Pi≤P′i if the first component of Pi is smaller than the one of P′i or by comparing recursively the following ones if the first components are equal. At least one of the inequalities should be strict. This defines a partial order relation.
3.1. Lagrangian relaxation
To speed up the resolution of the SPPRC (2.1)–(2.6), we propose to relax a subset of resources R1⊂R and apply dominance on the remaining resources R2=R∖R1 only. This is equivalent to consider Eqs (2.4) and (2.5) on R2 and replace Eq (2.1) by the equation
Since the flow is supported by at most one incoming arc at each node j from its predecessors i, the multipliers λri,j=λrj are independent of i. The vector of all multipliers λj= (λrj)r∈R1 can be obtained by solving the following maximization problem
{maxλminXL(λ,X),s.t.λrj≥0,∀r∈R1.
(3.4)
To solve this optimization sub-problem, one can use a projected sub-gradient algorithm which proved to be efficient in practice. The updating scheme is
λk+1j=max{λkj+τkjgkj,0}
(3.5)
where gkj∈∂L(λ,X) is a subgradient vector, τkj>0 is a step size, and the max operator is taken for each element. We choose
gkj=max(aj,Tri+trij)−brj,
(3.6)
τkj=θk(ZUB−L(λk,X))||gkj||2,
(3.7)
where ZUB is the best-known-smallest (upper)-bound of the solution of the problem described by (2.1)–(2.6) and θk∈(0,2] is a scalar. One iteration for the estimation of λ proved to be sufficient (precision and speed) when integrated into column generation.
3.2. Dominance
The dominance at each node j corresponds to the determination of the Pareto optima of the multicriteria problem applied to a set of labels. With the adopted Lagrangian approach, the label vector becomes
Lj=(Cj+∑r1∈R1λr1j(Tr1j−br1j);Tr2j,r2∈R2;).
(3.8)
When the obtained final solution is not feasible (due to relaxation), we need to solve again the relaxed SPPRC by dominating on the Lagrangian cost determined in the first phase and on the resources R2 and by checking the resource windows in the original space R.
Assuming that all predecessors of the node j∈N have been considered, the dominance at the node j can be interpreted as the determination of the Pareto optima for the multicriteria problem of |R2|+1 functions:
● Fi: The list of paths associated to the labels of Ei.
● Si: Set of the successors of the node vi indices.
● Q: List of unprocessed nodes indices.
● Pareto(L,Ej): Add a new label L to a set of non-dominated labels Ej while keeping the non-dominance property.
● ZL is the cost associated with a label L (first component of Eq (3.9)).
Our improved label-correcting procedure is detailed in Algorithms 1 and 2.
Algorithm 1: Modified label-correcting algorithm
input : An arbitrary directed graph G=(V,A), unnecessarily acyclic; R a set of constraints; R1⊂R subset of constraints to be included in the objective function; Lagrange multipliers λi∈R|R1|+ where vi∈V−{o};
R2 a set of resources output : All non-dominated paths from the source to the destination En+1, and the associated list of paths Fn+1.
// Initialization; R2=R−R1; forvi∈Vdo
| Ei←∅ end E0←{(0,0,⋯,0)}; // The size of the labels is:|Eo|=|R2|+1 Q←{0}
// Main loop; while:Q≠∅do
Algorithm 2: DLC-SPPRC: Dominance on Lagrangian cost for the SPPRC.
Input : An arbitrary directed graph G=(V,A), unnecessarily acyclic; R=R1∪R2 a set of resources constraints composed of two types. Output :ˉE, all non-dominated feasible paths from the source to the destination node d.
// Parameters choice; Choose θ∈(0,2]. kmax=10.
// Initialization; forvi∈V−{o}do λ(0)i=(0,…,0) a vector of size |R1|.
// Initial value of the Lagrangian corresponding to the solution of (3.4) ˉZmax←−∞.
// Choose an initial solution of the problem (2.1)–(2.6). X0=(x0ij)ij.
// Compute the objective function value (1) (upper bound). Zu←∑(i,j)∈Acijx0ij. ˉE←∅. k=0.
// Step 1; while (k<kmax) do
4.
Experiments
To solve the VRPTW, we use the Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition which defines K independent sub-problems and a global master problem. Applying a column generation, we alternatively solve the master problem and the K sub-problems. We addressed the VRPTW instances with a column generation approach by using the SPPRC as a sub-problem.
We used the Solomon data sets [59] and Homberger 200 customer instances. Each instance contains customers locations, resources (two for each costumer, i.e., |R|=2) and constraints. These data sets are classified in three categories: the r-instances (customers are located randomly), the c-instances (customers are located in clusters) and the rc-instances (mixed random and clustered structures). Furthermore, each family of instances is divided into two types. The first type (r1xx, c1xx, rc1xx) has a short scheduling horizon, i.e., small time windows, that allows only a few customers per route (approximately 5 to 10). The second type (r2xx, c2xx, rc2xx) has a long scheduling horizon permitting many customers (more than 30) to be serviced by the same vehicle. We applied our approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm and the classical SPPRC [32].
We implemented our algorithm using Java programming language. For the simulation, we used a CPU Intel Core i9-9900KF (8 cores), 3.60 GHz, RAM 32 GB, running under Windows 10 (64 bit). For the SPPRC, we implemented the Desrochers and Soumis algorithm [32]. Linear programs for restricted master problems are solved with ILOG CPLEX 20.1.
Tables 2–5 report the iteration number (Ni), the lower bound (Lbi), the computational time in seconds (Ti) and the number of generated columns (Ci), where i=1 for the SPPRC and i=2 for the DLC-SPPRC. A gap is computed as
Gap=100×Lb1−Lb2Lb1.
(4.1)
Table 2.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 25 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 3.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 50 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 4.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 100 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 5.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Homberger's instances with 200 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
For most of the cases, we obtained the optimal solutions in reasonable times. As in [34], the column generation process is initiated with an adaptation of the Clarke and Wright algorithm [60]. The sub-problem is stopped at each iteration when 500 labels have been extended to the depot with a negative cost.
From Tables 2–5, we can draw the following conclusions. Our algorithm was faster in all cases (228). In 15 instances (7%), the SPPRC algorithm could not obtain a solution in reasonable time (more than 10 hours for one iteration). Our algorithm was 10 times faster in 37 cases (16% of the cases) and 1.5 times faster in 166 case (73% of the cases). On average, we achieved a gain of 564% of the computational time. For the precision, in 188 cases (82%), we obtained similar precisions (a gap less than 1%) whereas the difference was more than 1% only in 25 cases (11%) and greater than 5% only in 2 cases (0.88%).
5.
Conclusions
This paper proposes an approximate solution algorithm to solve the SPPRC, which relies on a Lagrangian relaxation. Our method applies to both acyclic and cyclic graphs. Dominance is applied on a subset of the resources only. Optimized parameters updates schemes are used to ensure fast convergence. When applied to the VRP, our approach offers a good compromise between precision and computational time, and thus, can be applied to large-scale practical problems. In the future, we plan to apply our algorithm to solve various problems such as branch-and-price, branch-and-cut and branch-and-price-and-cut. In addition, we will explore more advanced optimization algorithms (heuristics, meta-heuristics, etc.) that have been successfully applied in other domains, such as, online learning, scheduling, multi-objective optimization, transportation, medicine, and data classification.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.
References
[1]
K. Gao, Y. Yang, X. Qu, Diverging effects of subjective prospect values of uncertain time and money, Commun. Transp. Res., 1 (2021), 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2021.100007 doi: 10.1016/j.commtr.2021.100007
[2]
J. Ke, X. Qin, H. Yang, Z. Zheng, Z. Zhu, J. Ye, Predicting origin-destination ride-sourcing demand with a spatio-temporal encoder-decoder residual multi-graph convolutional network, Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol., 122 (2021), 102858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102858 doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102858
[3]
J. G. Jin, H. Nieto, L. Lu, Robust bike-sharing stations allocation and path network design: a two-stage stochastic programming model, Transp. Lett., 12 (2020), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1691299 doi: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1691299
[4]
H. I. Ashqar, M. Elhenawy, H. A. Rakha, M. Almannaa, L. House, Network and station-level bike-sharing system prediction: a San Francisco bay area case study, J. Intell. Transp. Syst., 26 (2022), 602–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2021.1948412 doi: 10.1080/15472450.2021.1948412
[5]
G. E. Box, D. A. Pierce, Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 65 (1970), 1509–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481180 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481180
[6]
H. Drucker, C. J. Burges, L. Kaufman, A. Smola, V. Vapnik, Support vector regression machines, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.,9 (1996), 155–161.
[7]
K. Davoian, W. M. Lippe, Including phenotype information in mutation to evolve artificial neural networks, in International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2007, 2782–2787. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2007.4371400
[8]
Y. Wang, B. Chaib-Draa, A KNN based Kalman filter Gaussian process regression, in Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013, 1771–1777. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2540128.2540382
[9]
U. Johansson, H. Boström, T. Löfström, H. Linusson, Regression conformal prediction with random forests, Mach. Learn., 97 (2014), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-014-5453-0 doi: 10.1007/s10994-014-5453-0
[10]
X. Li, R. Bai, Freight vehicle travel time prediction using gradient boosting regression tree, in 2016 15th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2016, 1010–1015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA.2016.0182
[11]
D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, R. J. Williams, Learning representations by back-propagating errors, Nature, 323 (1986), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0 doi: 10.1038/323533a0
[12]
K. Cho, B. Van Merriënboer, D. Bahdanau, Y. Bengio, On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches, arXiv preprint, 2014, arXiv: 1409.1259. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.1259
[13]
Y. Liang, S. Ke, J. Zhang, X. Yi, Y. Zheng, Geoman: Multi-level attention networks for geo-sensory time series prediction, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-18), 1 (2018), 3428–3434. https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/0476.pdf.
[14]
Y. Li, Z. Zhu, D. Kong, M. Xu, Y. Zhao, Learning heterogeneous spatial-temporal representation for bike-sharing demand prediction, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33 (2019), 1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011004
[15]
C. Guo, F. Berkhahn, Entity embeddings of categorical variables, arXiv preprint, 2022, arXiv: 1604.06737.
[16]
Y. Yan, Y. Tao, J. Xu, S. Ren, H. Lin, Visual analytics of bike-sharing data based on tensor factorization, J. Visualization, 21 (2018), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-017-0463-1 doi: 10.1007/s12650-017-0463-1
[17]
Y. Guo, J. A. Kelly, J. P. Clinch, Variability in total cost of vehicle ownership across vehicle and user profiles, Commun. Transp. Res., 2 (2022), 100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100071 doi: 10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100071
[18]
K. Gao, H. Wang, S. Wang, X. Qu, Data and code disclosure and sharing policy of communications in transportation research, Commun. Transp. Res., 2 (2022), 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100055 doi: 10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100055
[19]
L. Lin, Z. He, S. Peeta, Predicting station-level hourly demand in a large-scale bike-sharing network: A graph convolutional neural network approach, Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol., 97 (2018), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.011
[20]
P. Goyal, N. Kamra, X. He, Y. Liu, Dyngem: Deep embedding method for dynamic graphs, arXiv preprint, 2018, arXiv: 1805.11273. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.11273
[21]
B. Yu, H. Yin, Z. Zhu, Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks: A deep learning framework for traffic forecasting, arXiv preprint, 2018, arXiv: 1709.04875. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.04875
[22]
K. Gao, Y. Yang, X. Qu, Examining nonlinear and interaction effects of multiple determinants on airline travel satisfaction, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 97 (2021), 102957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102957 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102957
[23]
K. Gao, Y. Yang, A. Li, X. Qu, Spatial heterogeneity in distance decay of using bike sharing: An empirical large-scale analysis in Shanghai, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 94 (2021), 102814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102814 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102814
This article has been cited by:
1.
Yuandong Chen, Jinhao Pang, Yuchen Gou, Zhiming Lin, Shaofeng Zheng, Dewang Chen,
Research on the A* Algorithm for Automatic Guided Vehicles in Large-Scale Maps,
2024,
14,
2076-3417,
10097,
10.3390/app142210097
Ruo Jia, Richard Chamoun, Alexander Wallenbring, Masoomeh Advand, Shanchuan Yu, Yang Liu, Kun Gao. A spatio-temporal deep learning model for short-term bike-sharing demand prediction[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1031-1047. doi: 10.3934/era.2023051
Ruo Jia, Richard Chamoun, Alexander Wallenbring, Masoomeh Advand, Shanchuan Yu, Yang Liu, Kun Gao. A spatio-temporal deep learning model for short-term bike-sharing demand prediction[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1031-1047. doi: 10.3934/era.2023051
Table 2.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 25 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 3.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 50 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 4.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Solomon's instances with 100 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].
Table 5.
Comparison of two approaches for solving the VRPTW for Homberger's instances with 200 customers: approximate DLC-SPPRC algorithm (2) and the classical SPPRC [32].