Bicycle Demand Conditional on the Service Actually Functioning

Authors

  • Vincent Parker Author
  • Arthur Walters Author
  • Ian Stone Author

Abstract

The question concerns demand conditional on the system functioning. The secondary ordinary least squares analysis contains 8,465 observations and uses cluster covariance. The coefficient on Temperature is 0.0645, with a 95 percent interval from 0.0573 to 0.0717. The hourly model is conditional on functioning service. Stopped hours are not silently interpreted as customers choosing zero demand. Service and multifidelity design can use this input distinction, but need a queueing or capacity mechanism to evaluate actions. The observed demand association has not measured the effect of adding bicycles or changing station configuration. The estimates describe the released collection and its conditioning set. No new data collection, simulator experiment, or deployment-policy evaluation is claimed.

References

  1. J. Li, J. Du, S. Gao, Q. Ye, and G. Jiang, “Enhancing Electric Vehicle Charging Station Design Using Multi-Fidelity Simulations,” Production and Operations Management, in press.
  2. W. Chen, S. Gao, W. Chen, and J. Du, “Optimizing Service System Resource Allocations with Probabilistic Measures: A Simulation Optimization Perspective,” Production and Operations Management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 65–81, 2023.
  3. Seoul Bike Sharing Demand. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2020. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5F62R.
  4. White, Halbert. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, vol. 48, no. 4, 1980, pp. 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934.
  5. Cameron, A. Colin, and Douglas L. Miller. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference.” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 50, no. 2, 2015, pp. 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317.
  6. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  7. Ankenman, Bruce, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. “Stochastic Kriging for Simulation Metamodeling.” Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0754.
  8. Kim, Seong-Hee, and Barry L. Nelson. “A Fully Sequential Procedure for Indifference-Zone Selection in Simulation.” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/502109.502111.
  9. Frazier, Peter I., Warren B. Powell, and Savas Dayanik. “A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection.” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47, no. 5, 2008, pp. 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1137/070693424.
  10. Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-21