Cited by 47Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyRecommender Systems and Techniques

DHPA: Dynamic Human Preference Analytics Framework: A Case Study on Taxi Drivers’ Learning Curve Analysis

Open access
Pan, Menghai, Huang, Weixiao, Li, Yanhua, Zhou, Xun, Liu, Zhenming, Song, Rui, Lu, Hui, Tian, Zhihong +1 more·2020·ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology

Abstract

Many real-world human behaviors can be modeled and characterized as sequential decision-making processes, such as a taxi driver’s choices of working regions and times. Each driver possesses unique preferences on the sequential choices over time and improves the driver’s working efficiency. Understanding the dynamics of such preferences helps accelerate the learning process of taxi drivers. Prior works on taxi operation management mostly focus on finding optimal driving strategies or routes, lacking in-depth analysis on what the drivers learned during the process and how they affect the performance of the driver. In this work, we make the first attempt to establish Dynamic Human Preference Analytics. We inversely learn the taxi drivers’ preferences from data and characterize the dynamics of such preferences over time. We extract two types of features (i.e., profile features and habit features) to model the decision space of drivers. Then through inverse reinforcement learning, we learn the preferences of drivers with respect to these features. The results illustrate that self-improving drivers tend to keep adjusting their preferences to habit features to increase their earning efficiency while keeping the preferences to profile features invariant. However, experienced drivers have stable preferences over time. The exploring drivers tend to randomly adjust the preferences over time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3360312

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [3]3. Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. 2004. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, New York, NY, 1.
  2. [22]22. R. S. Witte and J. S. Witte. 2013. Statistics (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  3. [24]24. Y. Ge, H. Xiong, A. Tuzhilin, K. Xiao, and M. Gruteser. 2010. An energy-efficient mobile recommender system. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, 899- 908.
  4. [25]25. Y. Ge, C. Liu, H. Xiong, and J. Chen. 2011. A taxi business intelligence system. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, 735-738.
  5. [26]26. Zi Yang, Xinpeng Wang, Xin Pei, Shuo Feng, Dajun Wang, Jianqiang Wang, and S. C. Wong. 2018. Longitudinal safety analysis for heterogeneous platoon of automated and human vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC'18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 3300-3305.
  6. [28]28. J. Yuan, Y. Zheng, L. Zhang, X. Xie, and G. Sun. 2011. Where to find my next passenger. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 109-118.
  7. [30]30. Brian D. Ziebart. 2010. Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy. Master's Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University.
  8. [31]31. Brian D. Ziebart, Andrew L. Maas, J. Andrew Bagnell, and Anind K. Dey. 2008. Maximum entropy inverse reinforce- ment learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'08), Vol. 8. 1433-1438.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, M., Huang, W., Li, Y., Zhou, X., Liu, Z., Song, R., Lu, H., Tian, Z., & Luo, J.
Affiliations
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Guangzhou University (CN)
  • Lenovo Group Limited
Venue
ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
Published
2020-01-17
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 2157-6904 (ISSN-L)
  • 2157-6912
OpenAlex
W3013077068
Cited by
47
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • DiDi Chuxing Inc.
  • NSF (CNS-1657350, CMMI-1831140, IIS-1566386, IIS-1755769 and DMS-1555244)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
inverse reinforcement learning, sequential decision making, profile features, driver learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review